Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Banking Supervision

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the White Paper outlining the Govenment's new policy towards banking supervision.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): We hope to publish a White Paper before Easter.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members welcome the Government's proposition to improve the supervision of the banking system? Who will be responsible for that supervision? Many of my hon. Friends believe that the Bank of England cannot carry on this function of supervision at the same time as being the spokesman for the City. Many of us are concerned about the way in which the Bank of England is not

accountable to this House for the functions that it performs.

Mr. Dell: I note what my hon. Friend says. I welcome his acceptance of the Government's policy in this area. My hon. Friend should wait for the White Paper, which will set out the method by which surveillance will be exercised. I assure him that I have taken note of his views.

Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the "Barber boom" in the early 1970s got out of control because of the money-creating potential of the banking sector? Will he take measures to ensure that in the upturn the banking sector is controlled by this Labour Administration?

Mr. Dell: That is a piece of history of which the Government are well aware. I hope that we shall satisfy my hon. Friend in the outcome of events.

Building Societies Association

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has held with the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Dell: My Department maintains regular contacts with the Building Societies Association.

Mr. McCrindle: The minimum lending rate has fallen substantially and ample funds continue to flow into the building societies. Has the Paymaster-General any sympathy with the view that it might not be entirely out of place for some reduction in the lending rate to be forthcoming from the building societies? If he will not go that far, will he consider discussing with the building societies the possibility, in case anything untoward should happen in the Budget which would make the building societies change their minds thereafter, of reducing the lending rate to first-time borrowers?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the minimum lending rate has fallen substantially below the building societies borrowing rate only since the turn of the year. It may be that the building societies are waiting to take a firmer view of the trend of interest rates before taking a decision on their lending rate.
The scheme in relation to first-time borrowers has aroused some interest, but the situation is being considered in the housing finance review.

Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that when interest rates generally rise, building societies' rates go up remarkably quickly and that when interest rates fall, there is always some reason for building societies not reducing their rates? Should not the Government take some action now?

Mr. Dell: The building societies' lending rate has been stable for some time, despite movements in the minimum lending rate. I repeat that it is only since the turn of the year that there has been a fall in the minimum lending rate as compared with the lending rate of the building societies. I am sure that at present the building societies are thinking carefully about this situation.

Mr. Michael Latham: Rather than holding out any hope to his hon. Friends, will the Paymaster-General confirm that it is the principal object of the Government's home ownership policy that the building societies should have enough money to lend to finance private house building so that they can raise the number of starts at least to the level of 1972?

Mr. Dell: Building societies are lending a large sum of money to house buyers. From that point of view the situation is satisfactory. I am sure that the House welcomes that fact.

Mr. Cant: I do not introduce any note of pessimism and I bear in mind that the building societies are massive short-term and medium-term lenders to the Government. However, is it not a fact that the amount building societies lend will increase to £6·1 billion but that their receipts are declining? Is not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little worried about the fate of his public sector borrowing requirement this year?

Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend has had no difficulty so far in financing his borrowing requirement without causing inflation.

Sir G. Howe: Is not the huge scale of the borrowing requirement one of the

reasons for the necessity to maintain such high interest rates? Will it not be one of the many favourable consequences to come from a reduction of the Government's borrowing requirement that in the end we might be able to move back to a world of lower interest rates, to building societies as well as to everyone else?

Mr. Dell: I am glad to know of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in lower interest rates. I do not think that he can say that our record in that respect compares unfavourably with that of the Government of which he was a member.

Negative Income Tax

Mr. David Steel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his proposals for the introduction of negative income tax.

Mr. Dell: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

Mr. Steel: That is quite true, but I hope that in the Budget Statement the Government will do something to try to eradicate the expense and bureaucracy of about 40 different means-tested benefits and bring forward some proposals to simplify them, preferably through a negative income tax.

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman will know about our intentions for child benefits in 1977 and he will be aware that the negative income tax system proposed by the previous Government would have eliminated one means-tested benefit. However, I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind.

Mr. Nott: Can the Paymaster-General say anything about the likely level of child benefits on their introduction? If they are to be merely equivalent to the existing child tax allowances, I do not know what the Government are making a song and dance about. What will be their cost when they are introduced?

Mr. Dell: I cannot at present say anything about the likely level, but child benefits will accrue irrespective of tax liabilities.

Nationalised Industries (Subsidies)

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now


slow down the phasing out of subsidies to the nationalised industries.

Mr. Dell: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 18th December 1975.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this policy is having a disastrous effect upon the Post Office and the railways, forcing them to raise their charges to a level that is now causing massive customer resistance? Surely it is now time to review this policy, for otherwise the services will be run down and there will be further unemployment in these industries.

Mr. Dell: I think that the Post Office unions have supported our policies regarding the Post Office. We are continuing to subsidise the railways, but there is a limit to the extent that one can subsidise a service. I think that we are maintaining a fair balance in this respect.

Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that the increases in commuter rail fares are having a very serious effect on people who are already hard hit by taxation increases? Will he at least undertake that the interests of this group will be properly taken into account in the Budget?

Mr. Dell: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement. In maintaining services which benefit from subsidies we have to keep some sense of balance, and the country just cannot afford to subsidise any service irrespective of the cost.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: If we phase out these subsidies, is it not right that the increases in prices will trigger off a spate of wage demands, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid?

Mr. Dell: That is one aspect of the matter that the Government must keep in mind. None the less, it cannot be sensible in present circumstances to continue to subsidise energy prices. That is the position that the Government have been explaining. I think that it is understood that it is an inevitable fact about our present situation.

Mr. Nott: I welcome that reply, but will the Paymaster-General publish, perhaps at the time of the Budget, details of

the extent to which nationalised industries are now financing capital expenditure out of revenue and the way in which the self-financing ratio—if I may call it that—has been moving over the past few years? The subsidies can be dwarfed by the degree to which nationalised industries are financing capital expenditure out of revenue. How has this been moving over the years?

Mr. Dell: We shall consider what information the hon. Gentleman can be given. The general position of the Government is that we wish the self-financing ratio to be increased in order to reduce Government borrowing.

Employment Premium

Miss Boothroyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for equalising the payments made to employers through the regional employment premium for male and female workers.

Mr. Dell: The regional employment premium is currently under review. The Government's plans will be made clear in due course.

Miss Boothroyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the eyes of some hon. Members the Government are in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act by paying some employers 100 per cent. more premium for male workers than the premium paid for female workers doing the same jobs? Further, in view of the active concern of the Secretary of State for Industry for the industrial future of the West Midlands, will the Minister consider extending the premium to that region, where the percentage of unemployment equals the national average?

Mr. Dell: I note my hon. Friend's remarks about the West Midlands. We are not in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act, because Section 51 of that Act excludes activities under previous Acts and REP is paid under previous legislation. The reason why the figure is higher for male employees than it is for female employees is that in the development areas, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the level of male unemployment is very much more serious than the level of female unemployment. Nevertheless, this is a matter that we are considering.

Widows

Mr. Lane: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the tax position of widows; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received relating to income tax allowances for widows; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Madden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about taxation allowances available to widows.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): We have received many representations about the taxation of widows from hon. Members and others, including some from widows' organisations. My right hon. Friend will give them careful consideration in preparing his Budget.

Mr. Lane: As an increasing number of my widow constituents feel that they are being unfairly treated, in the widest sense, as compared with single women, will the Minister of State—without anticipating etcetera—at least say that he will do his best to persuade the Chancellor to give them some encouragement in the Budget?

Mr. Davies: I do not accept that widows are unfairly treated as compared with other single women. People on the same basic income pay the same basic taxation. However, I accept that widows often have low incomes and that the tax thresholds have been going down over the years. I entirely accept that this is a difficult problem.

Mr. Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that in some circumstances widows are paying income tax when the social security department has recognised that their income is so low that it is having to subsidise them? Is that not an absurdity?

Mr. Davies: As I have said, I accept entirely that with the lowering of the tax threshold we have problems of this kind. The difficulty is in raising the tax threshold when thinking in terms of reducing public expenditure.

Mr. Luce: As a widow, particularly with children, has the same commitments as a married woman but has no husband's salary on which to rely, is she not in an unfair tax situation in relation to the married woman? Will the Minister consider raising the tax threshold for widows?

Mr. Davies: The widow with children gets the additional personal allowance, so in personal allowance she gets the equivalent of the married person's personal allowance.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my hon. Friend seek to persuade his right hon. Friend the Chacellor to do something in his Budget about this problem, and will he put to his right hon. Friend the discrimination that exists between working widows and married women who carry on working? Will he also take into account that married women enjoy generous tax provisions and that the same provisions ought to extend to widows?

Mr. Davies: I do not accept that there is discrimination here, but I accept that there is a problem.

Sir G. Howe: Does not the fact that the tax threshold is now below the level of pensions being received by certain widows indicate just how absurdly high the burden of taxation has become? Will the Minister of State agree that merely to restore the threshold to its level of last year in real terms it would now have to be increased for everyone from £675 to £850 a year? Will the Minister acknowledge that if the Chancellor does not go at least as far as that, he will not be lightening the burden of taxation for anyone, including widows?

Mr. Davies: That is a fair point. If one increases allowances, one increases them for everyone. Given the nature of our tax system, one cannot increase allowances for one group without giving some kind of benefit to other groups.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of VAT charged on paraffin lamps.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Eight per cent.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that that contrasts with the 25 per cent.


charged for navigation lights? Is he aware that the present Government's policy is, therefore, to encourage the boating industry to supply paraffin lamps in the rigging of small boats, at imminent danger to both those who sail and those who have to look upon this appalling spectacle of Government mismanagement?

Mr. Davies: For paraffin lamps which are used as navigation lights but which are not specifically designed for that purpose, being merely paraffin lamps used as navigation lights, the rate is 8 per cent. I accept that there are specially designed paraffin lamps which have to be fixed to boats and which become part of boats and for which the rate is 25 per cent.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about VAT and disabled people.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning relief from VAT on specialised equipment for disabled people.

Mr. Denzil Davies: We have received a number of representations seeking various reliefs additional to the substantial reliefs already in operation.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend also aware that a deputation met representatives of the Treasury recently and asked for special concessions in the Budget for disabled people because there is great concern about the imposition of VAT on items affecting them? Will my right hon. Friend give more sympathetic consideration to that request.

Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend knows, a deputation from the all-party group met the Financial Secretary on Tuesday. Of course, the representations made will be conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

Overseas Debt

Mr. Rost: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current total of overseas debt; and what was it in February 1974.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I assume that the hon. Member has in mind foreign currency

borrowing by Her Majesty's Government and by the public sector. Total amounts of foreign currency borrowing by Her Majesty's Government oustanding on 28th February 1974 and 29th February 1976 were $4·5 billion and $7·8 billion respectively. The latter figure includes the drawing on the IMF oil facility and the $2·5 billion Euromarket loan. The amounts of public sector foreign currency borrowing outstanding on these same days were equivalent to $3·6 billion and $7·9 billion respectively.

Mr. Rost: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about the staggering and shameful load of debt with which he has lumbered the British people? Does he intend, as before, to wait for the next Conservative Government to repay it?

Mr. Healey: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my Answer, he would have noted that slightly over half the total debt was inherited from the Conservative Government.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will my right hon. Friend say how much of the foreign debt was incurred to cover the deficit of between £5,000 million and £6,000 million in our trade with the EEC since we joined?

Mr. Healey: It is not possible to distinguish between the various elements of debt and the various elements of related borrowing. A large part of the additional borrowing in the past few years has been due to the additional cost of oil since the Government came into power—namely, about $6 billion a year. We inherited a balance-of-payments problem before the oil price increase hit us. As the Governor of the Bank of England said in January 1974, it was running at 4 per cent. of the gross domestic product in the last quarter of 1973.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the annual amount of interest on this debt at those two dates?

Mr. Healey: I cannot say without notice what the interest due was in 1974, but I can say that the cost of servicing the present debt at current rates of interest is about $900 million a year.

Mr. Skinner: If, on a conservative estimate, the deficit on our trading


balance with the EEC is about £5,000 million, it must be paid for in some form. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is part of the debt to which the Question refers?

Mr. Healey: All debts have to be financed in some form as interest has to be paid on the borrowing. At some stage the debts have to be repaid. My hon. Friend's hypothesis about the precise amount of the deficit with the Common Market countries is widely exaggerated.

Mr. Nott: I note that the amount of debt required to service the public sector requirements has doubled in the past two years. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say what proportion of the £7½ billion interest on the National Debt—I am referring to the amount in the Public Expenditure White Paper—he expects to relate to overseas borrowing and overseas debts. If he cannot tell us now, perhaps he will be able to do so when we have our debates next week. I have in mind the forecasts.

Mr. Healey: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is slightly better at arithmetic than I am. The hon. Gentleman protested greatly, after he left office on the last occasion, about the size of the public sector borrowing requirement that he found when he entered the Treasury. I am sorry to say that he did not carry his conviction to the point of resignation from the Conservative Administration when he was still being paid to accept responsibility. As I said, the cost of servicing the existing external debt is about $900 million. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to work out the percentage which that forms of the total borrowing.

Income Tax (Higher Rates)

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the starting level for the higher rates of income tax would now be for a married man with two children under 11 years of age to produce the equivalent of the £5,000 starting point for surtax established in 1961–62, taking into account the fall in purchasing power of the £ sterling since then.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Direct comparisons are complicated by the changes that

have been made to the tax structure. With income all earned, the surtax thresh-hold for a married man with two children under 11 for 1961–62 was £5,338. On the basis of the increase in the retail price index between April 1961 and January 1976 the present day equivalent would be £15,725.

Mr. MacGregor: Does not that illustrate the dramatic extent to which the tax burden has increased on middle management, hospital consultants and the like, thus seriously reducing their take-home pay? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor has been so successful in making the pips squeak that there is now serious disillusionment among many groups and that that could damage our prospects of economic recovery, not least in the number seeking jobs abroad? Does he not agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are arguing cases instead of asking questions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will conclude his sentence.

Mr. MacGregor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is urgent that the Chancellor does something about the tax burden and the poverty trap by reducing the burden of direct taxation?

Mr. Davies: I think that the answer illustrates the point that I made earlier. Under successive Administrations the tax threshold has gone lower and lower, mainly due to inflation. It should be pointed out that those on surtax have a little more money with which to cushion themselves against this trend than have those suffering from the poverty trap.

Mr. George Cunningham: Now that we have accepted the principle that relief should be limited to relief at the basic rate, would it not make sense and make the whole system easier to administer and understand if all tax reliefs were transformed from being reductions in the amount of income taxable to being reductions in the amount of tax payable?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It would mean a withdrawal of certain kinds of relief. Many groups and many people would dislike that way of changing our tax system. If we were to do away with all the reliefs, we could lower the basic rate of tax, but many issues would be involved.

Small Businesses

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward legislation to implement the policy concerning small businesses expressed in the motion passed by the House of Commons on 30th January 1976.

Mr. Dell: I cannot anticipate the Budget Statement, but the Government do not accept that the existence of this sector of the economy is threatened.

Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government do not accept that this sector is threatened. Is he not aware that on 13th January the House carried, with support from both sides, a motion stating that the sector was being threatened? Is he further aware that the small business sector is important in the role of job creation? Will he ensure that there is some incentive for it in this year's Budget?

Mr. Dell: I am aware of the motion that was passed by the House. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, said that the Government did not accept that the existence of the small business sector was threatened. There is no doubt that the sector is very important to Britain. I cannot make any further comment on any measures that my right hon. Friend might take.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the result of many analyses is that the three-day week, which was inflicted upon us by the stupidity of the Conservative Government, imposed as much suffering on small businesses as any other sector? If that sector is to recover, will my right hon. Friend ensure that a policy is adopted which does not result in bringing in another three-day week, a policy which was a disaster not only for small businesses but for everyone else.

Mr. Dell: I think that my hon. Friend has accurately stated the Government's policy.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Although the right hon. Gentleman says that this sector is not threatened, is he aware that there has been a more than 40 per cent. increase in bankruptcies over the past

year? Does he recall—even if the Government want to wriggle out of the motion that they accepted—that the Minister of State specifically said that the Government would do everything possible to help this sector? What is he doing to help it in its undoubted plight?

Mr. Dell: The country as a whole has been going through very difficult times. I am glad to see that there is now some change in sentiment on the part of industry. I cannot make any statement at this stage about what measures my right hon. Friend might take.

Capital Taxation (Agriculture)

Mr. Mackintosh: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the report of the interdepartmental committee on the impact of capital taxation on agriculture.

Mr. Dezil Davies: It is not the usual practice to publish reports of interdepartmental committees. The Government are still considering when, and in what form, the results of the report will be made known.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Would not publication of the report before Budget plans are announced help in discussions of the important subject of the impact of capital taxation on agriculture?

Mr. Davies: The Government have not decided in what form to publish the results of this report.

Sir T. Kitson: In view of the intended legislation on hereditary tenancies, what discussions has the Chancellor of the Exchequer had with the Minister of Agriculture about how capital taxes can be relaxed?

Mr. Davies: There has been, and always is, constant discussions between my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture on these matters. The interdepartmental committee dealt with and considered the impact of capital taxation on agriculture.

Mr. Watkinson: Will the Government conduct a searching analysis into the effect of capital transfer tax on forestry? Is he aware that we import nearly £2,000 million worth of products per year, a sum


which is a drain on our balance of payments? Is it not necessary to do something to stop the serious decline in the planting of trees?

Mr. Davies: I accept the importance of forestry to the economy. I do not accept that the decline in tree planting has resulted from the bringing in of the capital transfer tax, or any other form of taxation. If we were to carry out a searching inquiry, we should discover that substantial tax concessions are given to forestry under the present legislation.

Sir G. Howe: Do not the questions asked by both Labour and Opposition Members underline the extent to which forestry, farming, and the small businesses mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) are all beginning to see the first signs of the grave damage that will be caused by the imposition of capital transfer tax by this Government?

Mr. Davies: I do not accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. Indeed, the worst damage inflicted on farming in the last 25 years occurred when the Conservative Government, of which he was a member, sought to print money, thus causing farm prices to shoot up in the period 1970 to 1974. That action caused a great deal of harm to agriculture.

Inflation

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: The Retail Price Index rose by 23·4 per cent. over the 12 months to January, compared with the December figure of 24·9 per cent. Year-on-year rates of inflation have now fallen for five successive months. This is clear evidence that the deceleration in price inflation has now firmly established itself, and we should see a continuing sharp fall in the next few months.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that this relative fall in the rate of inflation has been created largely by a fall in purchasing power of organised workers—a fall which, according to the latest figures, amounts to 5½ per cent.—and the creation of an army of unemployed? Is

not that in direct conflict with the manifesto on which my right hon. Friend and I fought the last election. Is it not necessary to change the current attempt to regulate the wages of organised trade unions and to get away from the Government's present strategy?

Mr. Healey: I cannot follow my hon. Friend's advice. That would mean separating the Labour Government from the great mass of organised trade unions in the General Council of the TUC. I believe that the success of Her Majesty's Government's policy in this as in other fields depends on maintaining the closest possible co-operation between the Government and organised labour. The fall in purchasing power in recent months has not affected the retail price index in any way. The fact is that the lower wage norm established last August will bring down prices very rapidly in the coming year. The fall in prices in the second half of last year reflects the decisions taken in the Budget.

Mr. Cormack: When does the Chancellor expect the rate of inflation to be 8·4 per cent.?

Mr. Healey: Next year.

Mr. Heffer: Has the Chancellor read the economic review of the TUC for 1976? Is it not clear from that review that the economic strategy of the Government is not welcomed with open arms by the TUC? Is it not time that my right hon. Friend began to take notice of some of the serious economic arguments put forward by the TUC in that review?

Mr. Healey: I have read the economic review with great care and I shall be discussing it in the near future with the Economic Committee of the TUC. The review rightly takes credit for the important contribution made by the £6 pay limit to the battle against inflation in the current year, and sets itself a target of getting below a 10 per cent. rate of inflation next year. I hope that I shall have the consistent support of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in any action taken by the Government and the TUC to achieve that objective.

Mr. Gow: Will the Chancellor say at what rate of inflation he is aiming by the end of 1977?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. But I agree entirely with the TUC that it is necessary to get the rate of inflation down to well below 10 per cent. by the end of next year. In this respect, according to the OECD, we look like doing better this year than France is doing.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people most affected by inflation are the old, the sick, the disabled, and single-parent families? My right hon. Friend will receive warm support from the Labour Benches for his efforts to beat inflation, but we should greatly appreciate—and I realise that he can say nothing on this matter today—generous concessions for that group of people in his forthcoming Budget.

Mr. Healey: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is deeply concerned about these matters. I assure him that it is my concern to assist in these respects. I cannot, of course, anticipate the Budget. The TUC deserves great credit in giving priority to those who are not in work—the old, the sick and the children—over those who are in work and in requiring sacrifices from its membership in achieving these results.

Mr. Nott: Since the Prime Minister announced before the October 1974 election that prices were then falling and as ever since prices have been rising, will the Chancellor make a special announcement to the House when he brings down the annual rate of inflation

The value of the Child Tax Allowances to a standard rate or basic rate taxpayer for the years 1950–51 to 1975–76, were as follows:—


Year
All children*
Children not over 11
Children over 11 but not over 16
Children over 16



£
£
£
£


1950–51
27·00
—
—
—


1951–52
32·90
—
—
—


1952–53
39·95
—
—
—


1953–54
38·25
—
—
—


1954–55
38·25
—
—
—


1955–56
42·50
—
—
—


1956–57
42·50
—
—
—


1957–58
—
42·50
53·13
63·75


1958–59
—
42·50
53·13
63·75


1959–60
—
38·75
48·44
58·13


1960–61
—
38·75
48·44
58·13


1961–62
—
38·75
48·44
58·13


1962–63
—
38·75
48·44
58·13


1963–64
—
44·56
54·25
63·94


1964–65
—
44·56
54·25
63·94


1965–66
—
47·44
57·75
68·06


1966–67
—
47·44
57·75
68·06


1967–68
—
47·44
57·75
68·06


1968–69
—
47·44
57·75
68·06

to what it was when the Government first took office?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, I shall do so with the greatest pleasure. However, experience has taught me that the Opposition Front Bench will greet such an announcement with chagrin and disappointment rather than as a matter for congratulation.

Child Tax Allowance

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the value of the child tax allowance for the years 1950 to 1976 for a standard rate tax payer.

Mr. Denzil Davies: With permission, I shall circulate this information in the Official Report.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister confirm that in the last 10 months family benefits have declined by 20 per cent.? Is there an argument against index linking of family benefits, or is the present situation a result of the fact that neither children nor babies have a vote?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman referred to family benefits, which cover a wide range, but the question referred to child tax allowances. In the period 1950 to 1976 there has been a fall in the real value of child tax allowances. Balanced against that there has been some rise in the real value of personal allowances and of family allowances.

The following is the information>:

Year
All children *
Children not over 11
Children over 11 but not over 16
Children over 16



£
£
£
£


1969–70
—
47·44
57·75
68·06


1970–71
—
47·44
57·75
68·06


1971–72
—
60·06
69·75
79·44


1972–73
—
60·06
69·75
79·44


1973–74
—
60·00
70·50
79·50


1974–75
—
79·20
90·75
100·65


1975–76
—
84·00
96·25
106·75


* For the years prior 10 1957–58 there was a single rate of allowance for all qualifying children, regardless of age.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Nigel Lawson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any intention of making any further cuts in public expenditure for any of the years covered by the Public Expenditure White Paper published on 19th February.

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

Mr. Lawson: I deeply regret that answer. Why have the Government planned for a substantial increase in public expenditure next year when the Chief Secretary said yesterday that fears about unemployment could be met by tax cuts? Does not this cast doubt on the White Paper and demonstrate that the Chancellor is nothing but a paper tiger, if I may use that tiny Chinese expression?

Mr. Healey: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's "paper" smells a little of oil, but I take his point. I can only refer him to the views of the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in a recent speech at Surbiton, finally confessed that the cuts in public expenditure for which he is asking in the coming year will be bound to lead to increases in unemployment—a fact confirmed yesterday at Question Time by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.
Of course it would be possible to offset cuts in public expenditure by reductions in taxation, but not if we took the hon. Member's advice or the advice of the Opposition Front Bench Members who argue that I should also bring down the public sector borrowing requirement. Moreover, if I were to meet the objectives put to me by the Opposition Front Bench earlier this afternoon, we should need massive cuts in public expenditure next year and massive increases in taxation.

Mr. Pavitt: In making these very difficult judgments between the totality of

private expenditure and public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in 1973 we spent £1,945 million on tobacco and £3,536 million on alcohol, which is half as much again of the total we spent on health? In view of the hazard to health of the first, and the advantages of the second, will my right hon. Friend bear both in mind when preparing his Budget?

Mr. Healey: I may have misheard what my hon. Friend said, but I thought that he said that I spent all this money on tobacco and alcohol. The fact is that the public spent the money, but I derived substantial tax revenue from the expenditure.

Mr. Ridley: Does not the Chancellor think it was rather defeatist of him to make all of his cuts for the years when a Conservative Government will be administering public expenditure?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman always preserves a sort of excessive realism when discussing economic matters. However, the fantasies of optimism that he permits himself when discussing political matters are the marvel of the world.

Mr. James Lamond: Are there not many parts of the White Paper which should be welcomed by hon. Members from all parts of the House, including the clear indication of the Government's policy to maintain and improve old-age pensions and other benefits for the year to come, in strict accordance with the Labour Party manifesto.

Mr. Healey: Yes, I believe that the whole of the Labour movement will welcome the fact that in taking measures intended to enable our manufacturing industry to take full advantage of the upturn in world trade, and therefore in levelling off public expenditure programmes after April next year, we have


tried in every respect to maintain the priorities to which we committed ourselves in the manifesto on which we fought and won the last General Election.

Sir G. Howe: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer still not recognise that as a result of his failure to control the growth of public spending in the past two years, each and every household in the country is now saddled with an extra burden of debt interest, on behalf of the Government, of £100 per year? Does he not recognise that if he continues on the path of public spending outlined in his White Paper, that burden will rise to more than £200 per year extra as a result of his failure to control public spending? Will he not acknowledge that that burden means higher taxation and the destruction of jobs instead of their creation?

Mr. Healey: I should be more impressed by the crocodile tears shed by the right hon. and learned gentleman on behalf of householders and anyone else if I were not aware, as he must be, that the Government of which he was a member increased public expenditure in their last three years more than the present Government are increasing public expenditure in these next three years.

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the cuts envisaged in the White Paper on public expenditure will have on the economy.

Mr. Healey: They will ensure that sufficient resources are available for increased exports and investment and allow priority to be given to expenditure for improving industrial productivity and efficiency. They will also reduce any possible increase in taxation by the equivalent of 8p in the pound on income tax.

Mr. Hoyle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that they will also create unemployment in the public sector without creating employment in the manufacturing sector? This is evidenced by the fact that the National Enterprise Board, which was to be the instrument for revitalising the economy, is being given only £1,000 million to the end of 1980.

Mr. Healey: No, I cannot agree, because employment in the public services will be maintained constant once the cut

in programmes begins to take effect next year, as I have made clear on many occasions in the past week or so. My hon. Friend must accept that, in the words of Mr. Jack Jones in the Coventry by-election campaign yesterday—I look forward with the same excitement and interest to the result of that by-election as Opposition Members, but with a good deal more confidence—it is not really a battle about public expenditure: it is a battle for the very industrial heart and life of Britain.

PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)

Mr. Beith: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Luxembourg.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I shall be visiting Luxembourg on 1st and 2nd April for the next meeting of the European Council, Sir.

Mr. Beith: Will the Prime Minister try during his visit to form some impression of the standing amongst our Common Market partners of our delegation to the European Parliament if we choose to elect that delegation by a system which could succeed in electing no Northern Ireland Catholics, no Welsh Conservatives, no Labour Members from Scotland, no Liberals and very few more Members from the Government party than Luxembourg itself has?

The Prime Minister: My colleagues at the European Council do not concern themselves very much with the troubles of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and his party. However, they take very seriously our statement about direct elections. We have published a Green Paper on this subject which will be debated in the House in the reasonably near future.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that it might be a good idea if the House were given an opportunity through Mr. Speaker's Conference to consider the implications of direct elections before any formal decision was taken to go ahead with the debates in 1978?

The Prime Minister: The Government have made a statement on this matter and there was a reservation for Britain, although the Green Paper shows that we


should like to make progress in this matter. However, all these suggestions can be raised in the forthcoming debate on the Green Paper.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the Prime Minister aware that when he is in Luxembourg he will be in the only country in the European Community which has had a higher rate of increase in unemployment than Great Britain over the past 12 months? As Luxembourg's unemployment is about 600, is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that he cannot take much comfort from that?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Member cannot take comfort from erroneous facts.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Ferrybridge.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Adley: Will the Prime Minister please explain to the Ferrybridge Six why his Government's legislation denies them the personal freedom referred to on page 12 of his party's February 1974 manifesto? Is he aware that the coercion to which they are being subjected is a classic example of the reason why Lord George-Brown has resigned from the Labour Party?

The Prime Minister: I think that would be a very improbable explanation. However, with regard to Ferrybridge, I point out that the matters in question have been debated in another place and are sure to come back here, where they will be given further consideration. I think that the debate is the right place for making the type of points which the hon. Gentleman has made. However, since the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has now, I understand, dropped a glove in the direction of the trade unions, no doubt when they pick it up she will be able to discuss the matter with them.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the affairs of these workers are receiving full attention? Is he aware that if he visits Ferrybridge, which is in my constituency, he will be assured of an affectionate welcome from the local people, who are hardworking and level-headed—as one would expect in

Yorkshire—and who do not need any interference in their affairs from Conservative Members?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's last few words. I have noticed how some Conservatives want to spend their time talking about any constituency but their own.

Mrs. Thatcher: As the Ferrybridge case refers to the rights of the individual where there is a closed shop, may I ask the Prime Minister about a closely-related case close to Ferrybridge? Does the Prime Minister approve of the action of the Barnsley branch of the NUJ, which is urging the local town council to refuse to give Press information to anyone who is not a member of the NUJ?

The Prime Minister: The answer is "No", and that is not the first time I have said it. There is no ministerial responsibility for the NUJ.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister has ministerial responsibility to ensure the freedom of the Press and a free flow of information from a directly-elected body to the public. If the answer is as he says, will he ensure that there is a proper provision for the freedom of the Press in another place before that Bill comes back to us?

The Prime Minister: That is a totally different question as the right hon. Lady will find out when she starts to understand these things as a result of her long-awaited colloquy with the TUC. We are delighted to see that she is dropping everything she has ever voted for in this Parliament and the last. These are, however, important questions and I share her concern about them.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit the Far East.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Lamond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the EEC textile agreement was implemented on 18th July, Hong Kong manufacturers have been evading these quotas by channeling many millions of pounds worth of textiles through the Phillipines and Indonesia, which countries have no quotas, thus


evading the whole spirit of the EEC agreement? Will my right hon. Friend do something about this matter?

The Prime Minister: Not only the EEC but the GATT Multi-Fibre Agreement has put restrictions on virtually all sensitive textile and clothing produces from Hong Kong, South Korea and Malaysia. My hon. Friend is no doubt taking up this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Pattie: If the Prime Minister visits the Far East, will he consider taking some of his hon. Friends below the gangway with him in order to enable them to broaden their tiny Chinese minds?

PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to make a Ministerial broadcast.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) on 25th November, Sir.

Mr. Ashley: When my right hon. Friend next broadcasts, will he refer to the warning by Alexander Solzhentsyn that Western civilisation is in danger of collapse to appeasement? Will he tell the nation that we intend to maintain the strongest possible defence policy in concert with our allies, but that nevertheless we do not propose to be panicked into deserting the détente?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has got this absolutely right. My hon. Friend asks whether I will give a ministerial broadcast about Dr. Solzhenitsyn. I appealed on television to the Soviet Union for his release to this country. As for the question of Western solidarity, my hon Friend is right about NATO. I believe that it is more closely knit now than at any time in my experience. So, too, is the relationship between this country and the United States, and the same applies to the cohesion on these important matters within the members of the Community.

Mr. Blaker: When the Prime Minister makes the broadcast does he expect, for a change, to rise to the level of Solzhenitsyn?

The Prime Minister: Yes. There are many people on both sides of the House who pleaded for the release of Dr. Solzhensityn. What he says about what is happening within the Soviet Union must be taken seriously, but I would not necessarily agree, for the reasons I have given, with what he says about Western arrangements, whether on defence or integration of foreign policy.

Mr. Ford: When my right hon. Friend next makes a ministerial broadcast, will he choose that occasion to make an announcement of selective import controls applying to cheap imports from State trading countries? If the Government feel that they cannot make quota allocations, will my right hon. Friend at least oblige importers to prove that they are not dealing in dumped garments?

The Prime Minister: We have taken action on certain State trading countries in East Europe. I was as concerned as my hon. Friend about reports about very cheap suits coming from East Germany, a move which would very much affect my hon. Friend's constituency. But on examination I have found that none is coming into this country.

ECONOMIC POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECHES)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic policy made at the Civil Service Department on 16th February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Graves-end (Mr. Ovenden) on 2nd March, Sir.

Mr. Lamont: With reference to the Prime Minister's comments on public expenditure, does he not find it alarming that by the end of the decade debt interest will be taking between 25 and 50 per cent. more than the individual programmes on health and education? Even if the Government's cuts are carried out, will not the main effect be to provide more room for consumption, but a redistribution of income to the rentiers of Government securities?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave


to this question on Tuesday. According to the Financial Times, we could have avoided all this if we had printed money in the same liberal way as the last Conservative Government, an action which created our inflation.

Mr. Loyden: When are we likely to see the physical dispersal of the Civil Service in accordance with the Hardman Report?

The Prime Minister: We are pressing ahead with this. I discussed the matter with some of my right hon. Friends whose responsibilities are relevant to the question. I note the particular interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) in relation to Merseyside. We intend to fulfil the statement by the Government, who accepted the Hardman Report, which the previous Government refused to do.

Mr. Lawson: Since the speech in question was about economic affairs, will the Prime Minister say how he explains that unemployment in this country has risen more over the past year than in any other Common Market country except Luxembourg? Why did he tell my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that the figures he quoted, which came from a Written Answer from the Department of Employment, were an erroneous fact?

The Prime Minister: This is a question of which periods one takes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] If I give a wrong answer, I will be the first to withdraw it, but I should like to study the Written Answer. The increase in unemployment in 1974 was much greater in other European countries. The increase to which the hon. Member fairly referred was for a much later period, because unemployment began to rise here later than in the other countries. If one takes any period from the beginning of the slump, which began under the Government whom the hon. Member supported, one can see that our increase has not been greater than that of other European countries.

Mr. Molloy: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far better to make amendments to official policy, so as to get back to work the millions of skilled artisans and working men and women who create the wealth of this country

than to feel concern for the Stock Exchange gamblers and the puny merchant bankers who are so well represented on the Conservative Benches?

The Prime Minister: None of this arises out of the speech I made at the Civil Service Department on 16th February which related to the Civil Service. I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will welcome some of the things I said then. I dealt with the numbers and growth of the Civil Service under successive Governments. If the House decides that there are to be improvements in, for example, disablement benefits or a refinement in tax law in order to secure greater justice or to counter tax avoidance, this means more civil servants.

Mr. Baker: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that debt interest in the next financial year will be £5,000 million, which is about one-third of the yield of income tax? How does he think many taxpayers will feel when they realise that one-third of their tax is going to pay interest on debts largely run up by this Government?

The Prime Minister: I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury in the last Conservative Government.

Mr. Baker: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: Apparently he was not and he has proved his disqualification to be there by his question. I have already answered it when I made clear that we could have avoided this debt interest if we had printed money like water, as did the last Conservative Government.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the course of his replies, the Prime Minister—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Put down your handbag.

Mr. Tebbit: Since the Sex Discrimination Act is now law, I may carry a handbag if I wish—although what I am carrying is, in fact, a copy of Hansard.
During the course of his replies, the Prime Minister suggested that I had misled the House by quoting the wrong


figures. He subsequently said, in his characteristically straightforward manner, that if he were wrong he would gladly withdraw that suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to take the time of the House to prove his point now. There are about 30 hon. Members wishing to speak on the main business of the day and we are about to have business questions for a while. There are many hon. Members who will be complaining before 10 o'clock that they will not be called to speak in the debate.

Mr. Tebbit: I only suggest, Mr. Speaker that you, the House and the Prime Minister should refer to column 576 of the Official Report of 16th February where it will be seen that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment gave an answer to one of my hon. Friends which proves that I am right and that the Prime Minister is wrong.

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was chasing round after a copy of the Official Report when I answered a question from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), and it is clear that I mistook the time scale of the question put by the hon. Member for Chingford. I made it clear that if I had done so, I would withdraw—though I also pointed out that unemployment had started to rise much later in Great Britain than in other EEC countries. The hon. Member for Chingford was not here at that time and I want to treat him with the same respect as that with which I treat the rest of the House. I said that unemployment had begun to increase later in this country. If I mistook the time scale of the hon. Gentleman's question, I withdraw what I said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 8TH MARCH—Until about 7 o'clock, a debate on agricultural tenancies.

Afterwards, a debate on broadcasting the proceedings of the House.

Remaining stages of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords] and of the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 9TH MARCH and WEDNESDAY 10TH MARCH [11th Supply Day]: A debate on the White Paper on Public Expenditure 1979–80, Command No. 6393.

At the end on Wednesday, motion on EEC Documents R/451/76 and R/452/76 on proteins.

THURSDAY 11TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Development Land Tax Bill.

Motions on Northern Ireland Orders on Appropriation, Industrial and Provident Societies, Housing, Local Government and Planning and on Members' Pensions.

FRIDAY 12TH MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 15TH MARCH—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: subject for debate to be announced.

Mrs. Thatcher: I thank the Leader of the House for responding to representations made last week and giving us a debate on the Floor of the House on agricultural tenancies. May I ask him whether the debate on public expenditure is to be on the Adjournment or on a Government motion and, if it will be on a motion, whether it will be to approve or to take note? When shall we know its terms? Can the right hon. Gentleman also give us some idea when he proposes that the House should debate the Green Paper on direct elections to the European Parliament?

Mr. Short: I am grateful for what the right hon. Lady said on her first point. The debate on public expenditure will be on a motion, and I shall see that it is put down at the earliest possible moment. I shall certainly arrange a debate on the Green Paper as soon as possible.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend has announced that he will arrange a debate on direct elections as soon as possible, but would he not agree that the Tindemans Report raises issues germane


to direct elections? When will the House be able to debate that Report? Will it be before or after the debate on the Green Paper?

Mr. Short: Because of the time scale of discussion in Brussels, the debate on direct elections must be before the general debate on the Tindemans Report. I recognise the wish of the House to debate that Report, but I think that hon. Members require rather more time to digest it before we have a debate.

Mr. Blaker: May I reinforce the plea of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in requesting a debate on the Tindemans Report? Is it not a fact that the European Council is likely to devote a large part of its proceedings on 1st and 2nd April to that Report, and should we not debate it before then?

Mr. Short: I will look at this matter, but the urgency to debate direct elections is greater than the need to debate the general matter.

Mr. Cryer: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing a motion on broadcasting the proceedings of the House following representations last week? Can he give us an opportunity to debate next week, or as a matter of urgency, the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Strategy Review "The Next 10 Years", which is a very important document for our area? Many hon. Members are anxious to debate the position of the West Yorkshire woollen textile industry and its relationship to imports of cheap clothing and fibre yarn. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us an early opportunity to debate the whole situation.

Mr. Short: I cannot promise any time to debate the Review on the Floor of the House in the near future, but if my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would like to debate it in the Regional Committee this could be arranged very quickly.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in my constituency at the fact that the number of teachers is being cut in an area of substantial deprivation? Is he aware there is also concern over the fact that the Government appear to be pro-

posing to spend £15 million to £25 million on subsidising the imposition of sanctions on Rhodesia by Mozambique? Will he arrange an early statement so that the House and the country can be aware of the situation?

Mr. Short: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I listened to him and some of his hon. Friends questioning my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on this matter yesterday. I think there will have to be a statement shortly on the situation in that part of Africa, and when there is a need for such a statement we shall make it. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I seem to remember listening to him making speeches advocating even greater cuts in public expenditure.

Mr. Churchill: No. Get your facts right.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an indication of when we might have a debate on the composition of the Committee of Selection, on which there has been a vacancy for some weeks? Are the Government prepared to make any concession to the minority parties collectively by giving them a seat on the Committee?
May I also draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 109, which has been signed by 91 hon. Members from all parts of the House? Will he consider the possibility of a debate on this matter?

[That this House is of opinion that the Government should impose a ban on the import of sperm whale products into this country and take all other practical steps to impose a moratorium on whaling for a period of 10 years as an essential conservation measure of great importance to mankind in general.]

Mr. Short: It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman back again. I shall look at the procedural point he raises. I recently arranged a whole day's debate on procedure and, as far as I recollect, neither the hon. Gentleman nor any other Liberal took part in it. I shall also consider the hon. Gentleman's second point.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Leader of the House aware that we require not only statements and questions on the situation in Rhodesia but a full day's debate, in


view of the continuing responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the constitutional position in Rhodesia?

Mr. Short: The situation there is extremely serious. I shall see that the House is kept fully informed on this matter.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that there should be an early statement on subsidising Soviet dominated Mozambique, could there be included in that statement the potential consequences in the United Kingdom and other European countries of the extension of Soviet domination in the rest of Central and Southern Africa?

Mr. Short: Without accepting the premise on which the right hon. Gentleman based his question, I shall certainly call what he said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend has several times offered a debate on the problems of the North-West and Merseyside in the Regional Committee, for which we are grateful. Will he not reconsider that offer, in view of the discussions held on Scotland and Wales? Cannot we have a debate on the Floor of the House, attended by a senior Cabinet Minister, to answer the problems which we raise about our area?

Mr. Short: As I said earlier, I cannot offer any time in the near future. My hon. Friend came second in the Ballot yesterday, I believe, so he has a debate in his own hands.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rumour has it that the grant to the United Kingdom Committee for Overseas Student Affairs is to be withdrawn? In view of the great importance of this matter, will he afford time to debate it soon?

Mr. Short: No, I cannot offer any time in the near future. This is a suitable subject for an Adjqurnment debate. I shall pass on to the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I again draw to my right hon. Friend's attention Motion No. 211, in which more than 114 hon. Mem-

bers ask for a debate on penal policy and alternatives to prison.
[That this House, concerned by the increase in the prison population and with the overcrowding in prisons, calls for an early debate on penal policy and alternatives to imprisonment.]
Would it be possible to borrow a day from the Opposition for this purpose?

Mr. Short: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this matter, and it is one of the subjects that I bear in mind. No doubt the Opposition Front Bench heard what he said. This subject would be suitable for a Supply Day or part of a Supply Day.

Mr. Adley: As today is the second wretched anniversary of the Government's accession to office, may I refer to Motion No. 260 and ask whether we can have an early debate on the erosion of freedom in this country directly flowing from the legislation of this Government?

[That this House commiserates with the former deputy Leader of the Labour Party in his realisation that his once-great Party has betrayed its commitment to the freedom of the individual; and trusts that the addition of his name to the ranks of the Ferrybridge Six, to members of the Institute of Journalists, the members of the TGWU who do not want to become dockers, and to countless individual trades unionists and non-union workers, will hasten the recognition by Britons of the hypocrisy and sham that is the Labour Party today.]

Mr. Short: I should be happy to have a public debate with the hon. Gentleman on the record of the Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government on the subject of individual freedom.

Mr. Peyton: What a good idea the right hon. Gentleman has just had. Let us have a debate on liberty on the Floor of the House. The right hon. Gentleman shall choose the day.

Mr. Short: I offered to have a public debate outside the House, at a forum to be chosen, on the record of recent Labour Governments and recent Conservative Governments on the subject of the freedom of the individual.

Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that many Government supporters would welcome the opportunity to debate the affairs of Southern Africa and Rhodesia so as to be able to refute some of the erroneous views expressed by Opposition Members?

Mr. Short: Yes, I appreciate that. I appreciate the concern on both sides of the House about the situation there. We shall watch the position very carefully.

Mr. Michael Latham: Referring to next Thursday's business, has the Lord President either read or weighed the Development Land Tax Bill, which is an enormous measure? Should not a great deal more time be given to measures of this importance before they are considered by the House so that proper representations from outside can be considered?

Mr. Short: The time between the presentation of the Bill, the Ways and Means Resolution and the Second Reading is normal. I have had no representations from any other quarter about that.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members feel that Greater London requires more attention from the House? There is no development agency for London. I fully understand that the Conservative Party has no time and has a loathing for our capital city, but will my right hon. Friend use his endeavours—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point?

Mr. Molloy: —to see that we get a debate on Greater London and that we form the habit, as with other regions, of having a regular debate on the affairs of Greater London?

Mr. Short: Some of us were here for a long time last night debating the affairs of Greater London. There is a Regional Committee, and, if my hon. Friend wishes, he could arrange a debate there on Greater London matters.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Short questions from those who remain, please.

Mrs. Renée Short: May I ask my right hon. Friend once again when the ministerial reply to the Expenditure Com-

mittee's Report on the Children and Young Persons Act can be expected?

Mr. Edward Short: I cannot answer the question at this moment, but I will look into it and write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As it is clear from the replies given by the Leader of the House that there will not be a debate on Mozambique and Southern Africa next week, as the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee may be asking for the expenditure of large sums of public money in support of the Mozambique regime and as the regime, according to Her Majesty's Consul-General in Lorenço Marques, published in the last week an expropriation without compensation order affecting British property, may we have an opportunity to debate these matters?

Mr. Short: I recognise the seriousness of the situation and the concern felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall bear it in mind, and either I or the appropriate Minister will come to the House whenever necessary.

Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend accept that because of the Government's failure to deal with dumping there is danger of the country becoming the ash can of the world? Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on this subject soon, especially as we seem to be losing to the Common Market control over dumping?

Mr. Short: Without accepting either of my hon. Friend's statements, I shall keep this subject in mind.

Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to advising hon. Members how to obtain EEC documents?

Mr. Short: I am not sure on what my hon. Friend wants advice, but if he will let me know I will give it to him.

RHODESIA

Mr. Cormack: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in Rhodesia".


I moved a similar motion yesterday and I do so again today without apology because this is one of the most vital issues which face the country and the whole Western world.
I suggest that the answers given by the Leader of the House to questions put during business question time indicate that the Government have no intention of giving time for an early debate on this vital matter. I ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to protect the House by giving us that chance now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in Rhodesia".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND MEASURES

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on an important matter. I am sorry not to have given notice of it.
I refer to motions Nos. 6 and 7, on the Orders of the Day, which are to be taken under Standing Order 73A(5),

which means that the Question is to be decided forthwith. They are concerned with the relationship between this House and the Church of England, which is a constitutional problem of very great delicacy.
I do not necessarily quarrel with the fact that these motions were sent to a Standing Committee upstairs. Under Standing Order 73A(2), any Member may take part in that Committee but
shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment".
But I suggest that it is an undesirable practice that motions relating to the Church of England should be taken upstairs, because of the great constitutional delicacy of this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that the motions are perfectly in order. If they were not, they would not be on the Order Paper.

BILL PRESENTED

CIGARETTE SALES (GIFT COUPONS)

Mr. Laurie Pavitt, supported by Dr. M. S. Miller, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. David Steel, Mr. McCusker, Mrs. Winifred Ewing, Mr. Robin Corbett, Sir George Young, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Roger Sims, Dr. Colin Phipps, and Mr. William Molloy, presented a Bill to prohibit the provision of gift coupons with cigarettes sold in the United Kingdom, and for purposes connected therewith: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30th April and to be printed [Bill 86].

Orders of the Day — RACE RELATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary, may I tell the House that I have a very long list of hon. Members wishing to participate in the debate. I hope hon. Members will realise that I shall do my best in the selection, but they can help if they will bear in mind their colleagues who also wish to speak. The Home Secretary.

3.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill gives effect to the principles contained in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination which was published last September. A great deal has changed in the decade since the introduction of the first Race Relations Bill in 1965. The character of Britain's coloured population has altered dramatically.
Ten years ago, less than one-quarter of the coloured population was born in Britain. More than three out of every four coloured people were immigrants, a substantial number of them fairly recent arrivals. By contrast, today about two out of every five of the coloured population have been born here, and the time is not far off when the majority of the coloured population will be British-born.
The first principle upon which the Government's policy is based is the clear recognition that the vast majority of the coloured population will remain permanently in this country, and that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to our country in the fullest sense of being born and educated here as fellow citizens.
The second principle is that the members of Britain's racial minorities are entitled to full and equal treatment regardless of their colour, race or national origins. Racial discrimination and the disadvantages experienced by sections of the community are morally repugnant to a civilised and democratic society. These evils are also a form of economic and social waste which a society with any

sense of enlightened and far-sighted self-interest cannot afford. They are a source of individual injustices for which there should be effective legal remedies.
The third principle of Government policy is that there is a clear limit to the amount of immigration which this country can absorb, and that it is in the interests of the racial minorities themselves to maintain a strict control over immigration.
Only two substantial sources of Commonwealth immigration remain—the close dependants of immigrants settled here, and United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa. Successive Governments have recognised that both of those groups have special claims to be admitted for settlement—the claim of family life and family unity, and the claim of refuge for British nationals of Asian origin who have been deprived of the right to live and work in East Africa.
The fourth principle is that, although effective legislation against racial discrimination is a necessary condition of equal opportunity and good race relations, it is not in itself a sufficient or complete condition. The success of legislation depends on the one hand upon the leadership of Government and Parliament and on the other hand upon the response of society as a whole.
A wide range of administrative and voluntary measures is needed in order to give practical effect to the objectives of the law. These measures are needed not only to combat discrimination and encourage equal opportunity but also to tackle what has come to be known as racial disadvantage.
As we said in the White Paper, beyond the problems of cultural alienness there are the problems of low status and of material and environmental deprivation which coloured immigrants—and increasingly their children—experience. To that extent they share all or some of these problems with other social groups, and a general attack on deprivation would be relevant to their problems. But there may well be a special dimension to their problems to the extent that racial discrimination multiplies and accentuates the disadvantages which are shared in part with others.
Action is, therefore, needed to tackle racial disadvantages as well as discrimination. It is here necessary to devise


policies which are coherent rather than spectacular, and to set targets which are relevant and realisable rather than dramatic. Nothing could be worse than bold promises without the means for follow-through and implementation.
The Select Committee of this House, in its trenchant analysis of the organisation of race relations administration, has criticised the absence of a sufficient commitment by the Government to devise effective race relations policies and the inadequacy of my own Department's coordinating role. I shall not anticipate our detailed comments on the Select Committee's Report, but the Government fully accept that race relations policy needs more effective co-ordination.
We shall shortly take what I think is an important step towards this by establishing the Standing Advisory Council under the chairmanship, for the moment, of myself as Home Secretary. The Council will include Ministers of other Government Departments concerned, local authority representatives, the CBI and the TUC, the chairmen of the Community Relations Commission and the Race Relations Board—and later of the new amalgamated Race Relations Commission—together with members of the minority communities concerned.
We now have behind us the experience of 10 years of the working of the present legislation. I am not too much impressed by those who harp continually on the weaknesses and imperfections of the Acts of 1965 and 1968. Of course, those imperfections exist. It would, indeed, have been surprising if they had been perfect in every detail for dealing with a new and unfamiliar problem for our country.
It is interesting to observe that even in the United States of America, which has much longer experience of the problems of racial segregation and discrimination, Congress found it necessary in 1972 to make important improvements in the civil rights legislation enacted some eight years earlier. By coincidence, the same period of eight years has elapsed between the introduction of the Race Relations Act 1968 and today's Bill.
Today we are in a substantially better position to remedy defects in the legislation, partly because of our better understanding of the problems and partly because of the efforts made by the Race Relations Board and by the Community

Relations Commission to make the legislation work; and partly, too, because of what has been learnt during the preparation and passage of the Sex Discrimination Act, on the provisions of which the present Bill is closely modelled. The two statutory bodies have been valuable sources of information, advice and constructive criticism. Their tasks have been considerable and their achievements have been real. I should like to pay tribute to the permanent contribution which has been made by the chairmen and the members of the boards and the staff of both these organisations, as well as by the members of the local conciliation committees and the Community Relations Council.
Yet at the end of this decade, which stretches back to 1965, despite all our efforts both statutory bodies have forcibly drawn attention, as they should, to the inability of the existing legislation to deal with widespread patterns of discrimination, especially in employment and housing, to a lack of confidence among minority groups in the utility of the law, and, as they themselves have put it,
to a lack of total credibility in the efficacy of the work of both the board and the commission".
Not all the evidence, however, is grim and discouraging. I noticed that an encouraging report about general attitudes in this country appeared in the Press as recently as yesterday. I emphasise this especially for the sake of racial minorities themselves, because in my view it is important not to lend credence to unrelieved pessimism and prophecies of doom, and it is especially important not to associate the coloured people only with problems so that they come to be regarded only as problem people, which in my view they are not.
I turn now to discuss the general principles of the Bill.

Mr. Churchill: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that aspect, would he confirm that instances of racial discrimination arise from only a tiny minority of the people of this country? Would he at the same time pay tribute to the wonderful way in which the British people have accepted, for the greater part, a very substantial influx of alien culture and alien race into their midst without any open conflict or racial prejudice?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, indeed I would. Attitudes of discrimination apply to only a small minority. Certainly, as I believe we would all have expected, the British people with their traditions of tolerance and a stable society, protected by sinews of tradition extending back over a long time, have had to confront many problems greater than that which they confront in this sector, but they have reacted to this with great tolerance. In talking about this problem of minority groups, it is important also to remember the majority and to pay tribute, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) puts it, to the attitude of the majority in dealing with these issues.
I turn now to describe the general principles of the Bill, the provisions of enforcement and the separate but related provisions on incitment to racial hatred. Wherever possible, the Bill has been drafted—because it would have been foolish to have contradictions between the two—on the lines of the Sex Discrimination Act. We said in the White Paper "Equality for Women", now about 18 months old, that the Government's total aim was
to harmonise the powers and procedures for dealing with sex and race discrimination".
I believe that this Bill substantially fulfils that aim.
Except for good and specific reasons, the two statutes and the procedures for their enforcement have been framed in similar terms. On some procedural matters, relatively limited, the Bill contains improved versions of corresponding provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act, because even within a period of a year there are a few lessons that one can learn. The opportunity that the Bill affords has been taken to incorporate these improvements in the Sex Discrimination Act.
Part I of the Bill makes several important changes in the definition of "discrimination". The 1968 Act made it unlawful to discriminate on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origin. But—for example, in the housing case brought by the Race Relations Board against the Ealing London Borough Council—another place decided that the words "national origin" did not include nationality or citizenship. The resulting gap has created some anomalies and difficulties. For example, it is not at present

unlawful to discriminate against someone because he is a Pakistani national, but it is unlawful to discriminate against him because he is of Pakistani national origin.
The relatively very fine distinction between nationality and national origin created an obvious pretext, a gap, through which one could discriminate in an unacceptable way on racial grounds, and in some circumstances it is as irrational and unfair to discriminate against someone because of his nationality as it is because of his national origin. Therefore, the Bill widens the definition to include discrimination on the grounds of nationality or citizenship but it excludes exceptions where a person's nationality or citizenship is a justifiable ground for consideration.
Other changes in the definition of discrimination follow the Sex Discrimination Act. The Bill covers not only deliberate and direct discrimination on racial grounds but also unjustifiable indirect discrimination. A particular practice may look fair in a formal sense, or at least neutral in its original intent, but may be discriminatory in its operation or effect and have no obvious or reasonable justification. Under the Bill, therefore, it will be unlawful to impose, for instance, dress requirements at work or the adoption of recruiting tests which operate to disqualify coloured applicants at a substantially higher rate than white applicants without their being significantly related to the job requirements or performance. Those are obvious examples of the kind of practice I have in mind.
In short, we have here taken a broad and, I believe, realistic rather than a purely narrow and legalistic view of discrimination. Part I also extends the definition of discrimination to cover victimisation of those who assert their rights under the legislation.
Part II of the Bill makes discrimination unlawful. [Interruption.]

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that is the intention of the Government to implement paragraph 63 of the White Paper in respect of the possibility of training facilities—discrimination in a reverse direction?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I can confirm that.
Certainly, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal specifically with the White Paper in winding up the debate, in a way which I hope my hon. Friend will find satisfactory.
Part II of the Bill makes discrimination unlawful in the fields of employment, training and related matters. These situations are already covered by the 1968 Act, but the Bill follows the Sex Discrimination Act in applying the law of discrimination against contract workers, applying it against discrimination by partnerships of six or more persons and by occupational licensing bodies.
An exception in the 1968 Act for discrimination in selecting someone for employment requiring attributes especially possessed by persons of a particular nationality or descent has been replaced by a narrower and more precise exception where being of a particular racial group is a genuine occupational qualification for the job. Like the 1968 Act, the Bill contains an exception for employment for the purposes of a private household.
For the reasons given in paragraph 63 of the White Paper, the Government have decided to respond to the Board's recommendation to repeal the racial balance exception. After consulting both sides of the shipping industry, as promised in the White Paper, the Government have decided—again in accordance with the Board's recommendation—to repeal several of the existing exceptions allowing discrimination in employment on ships and aircraft. A single exception remains in the Bill for seamen recruited abroad. The Government will keep this exception under close review, and the Bill will enable it to be repealed by an order approved by both Houses of Parliament if both Houses are so disposed.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is strong feeling on this issue. Will he re-emphasise the point about this matter being kept under regular review so that it can be regarded as a purely temporary provision?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that there is strong feeling on this issue. That was why I stated my position upon it as I did. There are considerable arguments which have to be taken into account the other way. There is a strong feeling

one way and there are strong considerations the other way. I have indicated an open-minded attitude. The fact that the Bill makes it possible for this matter to be dealt with in future without new legislation indicates that we have an open mind on it.
In Part III the Bill deals comprehensively with discrimination in the public and private sectors of education. This part of the Bill also deals with discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services to the public and in the disposal and management of premises. In these respects it is similar to the 1968 Act, and there are similar exceptions for the disposal of small dwellings.
The House will be aware that the House of Lords, in two cases involving alleged racial discrimination by social clubs, decided that the words "section of the public" in Section 2 of the 1968 Act do not apply, in the view of the House of Lords, to members or associate members of such clubs. As a result, some 4,000 working men's clubs with a total membership of about 3½ million are not covered by the 1968 Act. In some towns these clubs have replaced public houses as the main providers of facilities for entertainment, recreation and refreshment. In addition, thousands of golf, squash, tennis and other sporting clubs are almost certainly outside the scope of the 1968 Act, although the House of Lords has not pronounced specifically on that issue.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Beconsfield): Mr. Ronald Bell (Beconsfield) rose—

Mr. Jenkins: When I have completed this point, I shall be glad to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
In my view, clubs must be allowed to apply a test of personal acceptability to candidates. Individual members should be free to propose and second whom they please. But I do not think that it is in the public interest for clubs to be permitted to operate a colour bar or, say, a Jewish quota as part of their policy. Clause 25 of the Bill therefore makes it unlawful for a club or other body to discriminate on racial grounds. However, it does not apply to a small club with fewer than 25 members.

Clause 26 makes an exception for a club whose main object is to enable the benefits of membership to be enjoyed by


persons of a particular racial group defined otherwise than by colour. The Bill will not, therefore, affect the activities of associations like the London Welsh, the London Scottish or the Indian Workers' Association, provided that they do not discriminate on grounds of colour. It could certainly be said that a person must be a Welshman to be a member of the London Welsh, but a black Welshman could not be excluded.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The right hon. Gentleman said that, in the opinion of the House of Lords, the words in the 1968 Act did not apply to clubs. Does this not go further? Was not an assurance given to us by the right hon. Gentleman himself or his predecessor—I forget which—in Standing Committee and, I think, on the Floor of the House that the intention was that the Act should not apply to clubs?

Mr. Jenkins: I did not conduct the 1968 legislation through the House. I was, in a sense, one of its parents, but when it was going through the House I was a somewhat distant parent as I was involved in other matters. I cannot recollect all the exchanges which took place. My impression is that the decision of the House of Lords aroused some surprise. However that may be, an important part of our constitution is that the courts have the duty to interpret legislation, but clearly Parliament has the right to make legislation. The House of Lords—in its judicial, not legislative, capacity—is the ultimate arbiter of what is right in law according to the statutes prevailing at the time. We are putting forward a proposition, and it will be for the Committee and ultimately the House in considering all the issues to decide what they think about it.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I have already informed my right hon. Friend that I am opposed to this part of the Bill. Does he agree that this part of the Bill is fraught with difficulties and dangers? We have not had difficulty in this area because the vast majority of clubs deal with membership applications reasonably well without discriminatory considerations. Therefore, should we not think again before legislating on this matter, because in practice the job is already being done satisfactorily?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of my hon. Friend's views on this matter. I am not sure whether he communicated them to me direct. However, he certainly communicated them to me powerfully, if indirectly, after publication of the White Paper. I agree with my hon. Friend that this area is fraught with difficulties. We have an admirable, wide-ranging club organisation of affiliated members which in normal circumstances allows members of one club to pay temporary visits to another club. I agree that most clubs do not discriminate on colour grounds, but in applying the affiliation test it is possible to apply direct colour discrimination. That is difficult to reconcile with any proper approach to the matter.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the taking of the case to the Lords by the Club and Institute Union to establish the right of an individual club to determine its membership brought about a certain amount of uninformed opinion on why it was done? Does he know that the executive body of the Club and Institute Union is to recommend to its annual conference this year that any club which wishes to operate a colour bar should have its CIU membership discontinued? The CIU feels very strongly about this matter. It feels that its approach has been misconstrued. In the first instance it wanted to establish the right of a club to determine its individual membership, but, in the second instance, on the affiliation side, it agreed with the object of the Bill.

Mr. Jenkins: Since the White Paper was published I have had the opportunity of meeting members of the Club and Institute Union, for which I have a great respect, and we had a discussion about this matter. I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I am quite clear that it is for the House of Lords or other appropriate courts to determine what is the state of the law and for this House and Parliament to determine what the law ought to be. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) that it is a very difficult aspect of the matter. I appreciate that, but it is also a matter of considerable importance. I reiterate, as I said previously, that in my view clubs must be able to


apply the test of personal acceptability to candidates but that this should not be on a colour basis.
I should like next to draw attention to Clause 23 of the Bill because it was not mentioned exceptionally in the White Paper. It exempts anything done by a person arranging to take children, elderly people or people requiring a special degree of care and attention into his home and to treat them as if they were members of his family. The problem arises here again as a result of a House of Lords case in which it was decided that child fostering under the local authority arrangements was within the scope of the 1968 Act—perhaps the reverse of the issue which we were considering a few moments ago. The Government consider that it is not in the interest of foster-children and others treated as part of one's family, or in the interest of good race relations, for the law to apply to such personal and intimate relationships.
Part IV of the Bill deals with other unlawful acts: discriminatory practices and advertisements, instructions and pressure to discriminate, vicarious liability of employers and principals and the aiding of unlawful acts.
Part V applies to charities. It exempts from the general provisions of the Bill any discrimination, other than discrimination on the grounds of colour, which is necessary to comply with the terms of a charitable instrument, and it provides for the removal of all colour restrictions in charitable instruments.
Part VI contains general exemptions from the scope of the Bill. Three kinds of exception require particular note. The first is the exception in Clause 35 of discrimination in affording persons of a particular racial group access to facilities or services to meet their special needs in relation to their education, training or welfare. I think that this deals with the point which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller).
The second kind of exception which I should like to mention is in Clause 41. It is necessary to have an exception here because the Bill covers, as I have explained, discrimination on the grounds of nationality as well as indirect discrimination. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the Bill does not invalidate

justifiable nationality rules or residence requirements, provided that they have received ministerial approval. The residence requirements for eligibility for National Health Service benefits, for example, need to be safeguarded.
The third kind of exception is closely analogous to similar provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act. It would be wrong to adhere so blindly to the principle of formal legal equality as to ignore the handicaps preventing many black and brown workers from obtaining equal employment opportunities. Clauses 37 and 38 therefore permit—they do not require—training bodies, employers, trade unions and employers' associations to provide training and encouragement to people in a particular racial group to help them to take up jobs or enjoy other opportunities from which they have previously been excluded or in which they have been significantly under-represented.
Part VII of the Bill establishes the new Race Relations Commission. The principal functions of the new Commission will be to work towards the elimination of discrimination, to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups generally, and to keep the working of the legislation under review. It will have a major strategic rôle in enforcing the law in the public interest. It will be able to assist and represent individuals in appropriate cases, but it will also be concerned with wider policy: to identify and deal with discriminatory practices by industries, firms or institutions.
The Commission will be empowered to issue non-discrimination notices and to bring legal proceedings against those who persistently violate the law. It will also be able to conduct general investigations and research, to advise the Government and to take action to educate and persuade public opinion. It will keep under review wider policies and practices in the public and private sectors, having particular reference to their implications and their effect upon racial minorities.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Can the Home Secretary say why it has been decided to call this new body the Race Relations Commission when such a strong case was made out by the Select Committee on Race


Relations for it to be called the Equal Rights Commission?

Mr. Jenkins: The main point was that that name would have been so close to that of the Equal Opportunities Commission in the sex discrimination field as to create confusion. What is inside bottles is more important than the labels, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether there might not have been confusion amounting almost to an infringement of the fair standards practices in this respect. However, I quite agree that this is a matter not of principle but of convenience.
The new body will also keep under review wider policies and practices in the public and private sectors having particular regard for their implications and their effect upon racial minorities. In all these respects the functions and powers of the Commission will be similar to those of the Equal Opportunities Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act, and, as recommended by the Select Committee, the two Commissions will be encouraged to co-operate closely and to exchange relevant information and experience so as to strengthen their respective rôles.

Mr. Michael Alison: Could the right hon. Gentleman say a word about why there will apparently be no financial saving from the merger of the two bodies? Will the new body take on the same number of staff from both its predecessors?

Mr. Jenkins: I shall come to that presently and say why I think it is desirable to amalgamate the two bodies, but I can answer the hon. Member first.
I am not necessarily saying that there will be no savings at all. I think that the numbers employed will be approximately equal, although not exactly equal, because they will be carrying out the functions which have been performed by the two bodies concerned. It is quite desirable and not altogether usual, perhaps, to have in a new Act of Parliament something which puts one body in place of two, but I do not think I can promise any significant saving in numbers. However, it is quite unusual in an Act of Parliament not to have an increase in numbers. Therefore, it might not be too unsatisfactory from that point of view.
The Commission will have greater powers and wider responsibilities than either the Race Relations Board or the Community Relations Commission. However, it will not have the Board's present obligation to investigate every individual complaint and to attempt to obtain settlements and assurances by means of conciliation. Nor will it have the Board's exclusive right to bring legal proceedings because, as under the Sex Discrimination Act, there will be a right of individual access to legal redress in industrial tribunals and county courts.
The Commission will have a wide discretion, however, in deciding whether, and, if so, in what way, to give assistance to complainants. However, in drafting Clause 65, which deals with this matter, we have been conscious of a widespread criticism of the White Paper that more should be done to assist alleged victims of discrimination.
Critics have arguably underestimated the extent of the new Commission's powers and the value of the procedure for questioning a respondent on his reasons for any relevant act as laid down under Clause 64. That said, however, I recognise that there has been some substance in the criticism put forward since the autumn. Accordingly the Bill will impose a duty on the Commission to consider applications for assistance and within two months to inform the applicant of its decision.
Where an application for assistance has been made, the period within which proceedings may be instituted in the courts will be extended by a period of two months, which may itself be extended by the Commission for a further month. These provisions, which have no equivalent in the Sex Discrimination Act, should enable the Commission to meet the special needs of alleged victims of racial discrimination without being distracted from its crucial and essential strategic rôle.
The White Paper when published left open the question whether the Commission should be, as the Community Relations Commission now is, the source of financial support, training and co-ordination for local community relations work. The recommendations by the Select Committee, by the Race Relations Board, by the Community Relations Commission


and by voluntary organisations showed a wide divergence of view.
I should tell the House frankly that I have found the resolution of this issue more difficult than any other decision which has had to be made about the Bill. On the one hand, it can be argued that the new Commission, responsible for administering in the public interest a far more powerful piece of race relations legislation than we have yet seen, could be compromised in carrying out its law enforcement duties if it is also obliged to stimulate and co-ordinate local community relations work because its essential independence, impartiality and objectivity, so it is said, could be impaired.
On the other hand, it can be and has been argued that the new Commission should be responsible for co-ordinating and supporting the 85 local community relations councils. If its law enforcement, advisory and monitoring functions were divorced from a community base, the Commission might be seen as remote from the realties of life in the minority communities. The White Paper said that we were convinced of the need to ensure that any new arrangement did nothing to hinder the valuable work done by community relations councils and their officers at local level. That certainly remains the position. After further consultation and reflection, we came to the conclusion that the only practicable way of preserving this vital work was by giving the Community Relations Commission's present responsibilities for work at local level to the new Commission.
The other options which have been suggested were in my view unworkable, ineffective or unacceptable to those most affected by any change—the continued existence of two statutory bodies, which I should not have liked, the creation of a new national voluntary body supported by public funds, which would be yet another body, the placing of local community relations work under the Home Office, which, although I have great respect for that Department, over which I have presided twice, would not be entirely appropriate for this task, or placing them under local authorities, which I do not think would have worked satisfactorily either.
The Commission will be able to give financial or other assistance to organisa-

tions concerned with the promotion of good relations between persons of different racial groups, and any public expenditure will of course will be subject to ministerial approval.
In empowering the Commission to support local work, Clause 44 provides for a special committee. I hope that this will go some way to satisfy the doubts of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), for whose interest in this subject and good will towards it I have the greatest possible respect. That committee will be kept structurally distinct to exercise the Commission's fieldwork responsibilities. In this way, we hope that the Commission will be able to avoid being compromised or weakened. I see that the hon. Member for Dorking thinks that he has been compromised, but I believe that his back is broad enough to sustain such a relatively mild compliment.
In this way, we hope that the Commission will be able to avoid being compromised or weakened in carrying out its other functions.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is dwelling a little on this matter. I am sure that he recognises that enforcement is the nub of this matter. Was the decision to scrap the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission and replace them with the Race Relations Commission taken after adequate consultation with minority groups, taking into account the fact that the minority communities are often the last people to know that they have been discriminated against?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not like the word "scrap", which suggests that one is throwing these two bodies, which have done very good work over 10 years, on to a scrap heap. That is not so. We are moving forward into a new field, in which they have played an essential part in laying the foundations which will allow us to go forward. However, I can assure my hon. Friend, as I said earlier in this passage, that there was no decision about the Bill to which I devoted more attention—frankly, no decision I found it more difficult to make—and that, in advance, I had the fullest possible consultations with everyone who I thought could help me and with all those with knowledge and experience in this field.
Part VIII deals with enforcement. These provisions are virtually identical with the enforcement provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act.
I turn finally to Part IX, which amends the law on incitement to racial hatred.

Mr. John Loveridge: Many of us, while we deeply respect the aspirations and principles upon which the Bill is based, are none the less concerned about the proposed methods of enforcement. We have been told how the Commission will be able to help those who make accusations. What we have not been told, but should like to hear, is what redress there will be for those against whom false accusations are made.

Mr. Jenkins: I agree that it is important that in this, as in any other area, people should not be subject to malicious or frivolous complaints. Of course, in order to proceed in this matter, a complainant has either to get the assistance of the new Commission, in which case he has to go through quite an important sieve, or he has to take his own responsibility for bringing an action before an industrial tribunal or a county court. There is no legal aid before industrial tribunals. Some people think that there should be, but there is not, and there is no immediate prospect of it. So there is a considerable disincentive to people, most of whom in these circumstances are pretty badly off, to indulge in frivolous or pointless complaints. That preserves a fairly effective barrier against people doing things which are totally frivolous, malicious or without any essential basis.
Part IX amends the law on incitement to racial hatred. Under Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1965, a person is guilty of an offence if, out of an intent to stir up racial hatred, he circulates written matter or uses words in public which are threatening, abusive or insulting and likely to stir up racial hatred. The burden of proving the necessary intent has been increased since the offence was created, as a result of Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which made it necessary to prove a subjective, rather than a purely objective, intent.
Prosecutions in this field may be brought only by or with the consent of

the Attorney-General. The prosecuting authorities believe that the need to prove a deliberate subjective intention as well as the other ingredients of the offence have made it unlikely that prosecutions will succeed except in the most blatant and extreme cases. This view is reinforced by the observations by Lord Justice Scarman in his Report on the Red Lion Square disorders, that Section 6 of the 1965 Act is too restrictively defined to be an effective sanction.
The offence of incitement to racial hatred is closely akin to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936, which makes it an offence to use
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned".
I emphasise the last phrase, because it shows that an offence may be committed under the Public Order Act if there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace whether or not there is an intent to cause a breach of the peace.
I have said that the two offences are closely akin because racial hatred contains the seeds of violence. It is a stronger and more dangerous emotion than ridicule or contempt. It creates the circumstances which engender racial violence. The Government have therefore decided to make a modest but significant amendment to Section 6 of the 1965 Act by removing the need for subjective intent. This will bring it into line with the offence under the Public Order Act.

Sir George Sinclair: Sir George Sinclair (Dorking) rose—

Mr. Jenkins: It will probably be more convenient if I complete this paragraph on the same point before giving way.
I know that the proposed change will not satisfy some hon. Members on both sides of the House. For example, a Bill has been presented by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and others that seeks to repeal Section 6, which it describes as a
vindictive prescription…devised and insinuated into our laws by narrow and intolerant persons"—
[Interruption.] I did not hear that comment. I am not sure whether it came from the Back Benches or from higher up.
I do not regard myself as a narrow or intolerant person. I am deeply concerned in this, as in other fields, with the protection of freedom of speech. [Interruption.] I think that we have seen in that demonstration in the Gallery a few narrow and intolerant people, within whatever definition one cares to apply.
What I was concerned with was, in a sense, to argue the case against going further than that which I had described as the modest but significant distance I have gone.
It is not justifiable in a democratic society to interfere with freedom of expression except where it is essential to do so for the prevention of disorder or for the protection of other basic freedoms. I believe that Clause 69 satisfies that test. In drafting the clause we have been careful to ensure that regard will be had to all the circumstances in deciding whether there is a likelihood that racial hatred will be incited. We have also been careful to include specific safeguards for fair and accurate reports of legal proceedings and proceedings in Parliament, as well as affording a defence to the unwitting publisher or distributor of written matter.

Sir G. Sinclair: Perhaps the manifestation in the Gallery has reinforced the case I was going to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman. Has he recently reviewed the possibility of including such provision in the Public Order Act, where it seems more appropriate, instead of putting it into the Bill?

Mr. Jenkins: I shall look again at that aspect, but I said earlier that what we were doing in Clause 69 was to bring the racial discrimination legislation into line, on the question of objective or subjective intent, with that which has been in our law under the Public Order Act for the past 40 years. I shall consider the question that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I think they will be now marching more closely together than hitherto.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even the meanest criminal in this country is entitled to rely on the fact that his accusers must prove his intention to commit the crime before he can be convicted? What justification is there for an exemption for race relations?

Mr. Jenkins: That is a more complicated doctrine. I am not a lawyer, but I am aware that a different point of view was taken by a Government of a different complexion as long ago as 1936 on this issue.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I should like to take this matter out of the hands of the lawyers. Is there a possibility of finding an advisory role for the Commission? I have in mind a disgraceful broadcast on BBC2, which in my view was certainly an offence under the existing legislation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I hope that hon. Members will not try to make speeches on the pretext of an intervention.

Mr. Jenkins: In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I shall not make pronouncements on particular programmes in my rôle as Minister loosely responsible for the two broadcasting organisations. No Minister should do that, and I have no intention of doing so, even in response to my hon. Friend. I think that, in view of what Mr. Speaker said earlier, I should now proceed rapidly to the end of my speech without giving way.
There will be others in the House besides those who have intervened, and people outside also, who will be disappointed that on the racial incitement point the Government have not gone further, particularly in penalising the dissemination of ideas based on an assumption of racial superiority or inferiority or statements, true or false, which may encourage racial prejudice or discrimination. The Government said in a White Paper that they would carefully consider any further representations that might be made on this subject. We have done so, and my present view is that it would be wrong to extend the criminal law in this way. False and evil racial propaganda of a subtle and insidious kind is more likely to be effectively defeated by public education and debate than by prosecution. I doubt whether the criminal law is the right instrument to deal with such material.
I also believe that it is fundamental to a democratic society that unpopular ideas should be freely expressed, even if they are regarded as false and evil by


most people of sense and reason, unless they clearly endanger public peace.
I hope that after careful reflection the House will agree that Clause 69 maintains the proper balance between public order and individual freedom—

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Mr. Nigel Lawson (Blaby) rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I shall not give way. I have said that I shall now proceed to the end of my speech.
It is almost 10 years since I had my first opportunity as Home Secretary to state my attitude towards racial discrimination and the problems of integration. I then set out what I believed, and still believe, to be the central objective of Government policy: the promotion of equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.
I conclude today, as I did on that occasion, by emphasising that the task that confronts us all is crucial but should not be daunting. The problem that we are discussing makes less demand upon our capacity for tolerance and change than many problems which we have successfully surmounted in the past. However, the way in which we face it—both in Parliament and in the country—can have a great effect upon our future. If we succeed, we and our children will live in a decent and tolerant society. If we fail, we shall create vast difficulties for future generations of our citizens.
I am confident, in commending the Bill to the House, that it will create—it cannot do the whole job, because only public opinion and public response can do that—a better framework within which the real work must be done where people of different races meet in their everyday lives.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. National Coal Board (Finance) Act 1976
2. British Railways Order Confirmation Act 1976

3. Brownies Taing Pier Order Confirmation Act 1976
4. Inverness Harbour (Citadel Quay, &c.) Order Confirmation Act 1976
5. Inverness Harbour Order Confirmation Act
6. City of Aberdeen District Council Order Confirmation Act 1976

It is quite appropriate that I happen to be in the Chair.

Orders of the Day — RACE RELATIONS BILL

Question again proposed.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: At the start of our discussions on the Bill I hope that we can all accept that, whatever may be our differences on details or methods, or even in some cases on the wisdom of legislation at all, we are agreed on the main objectives. We all want to promote good race relations and are completely committed to the principle of non-discrimination. Such an acceptance could save us from those accusations of racialist tendencies which all too often bedevil sensible arguments on race problems. It would also help us to discuss and, when we think it necessary, to criticise the Bill in a calm atmosphere which will help to remove racial tensions rather than exacerbate them.
We should also appreciate that it is our duty openly to voice the genuine anxieties of many people in this country. In doing so we have equally to differentiate between those genuine anxieties and the real prejudices shown in the vicious correspondence which I am sure all hon. Members receive from the real extremists. We have had a demonstration of that in the Public Gallery this afternoon. But, of course, I can refer only to the paper that has arrived on the Floor of the House. It is at least evidence that there are some real extremists in this country. We have to face that fact.
I start from the conviction that if the Bill is to work—and here I agree with the Home Secretary—it can only be a part of any race relations policy and has to operate against a background of public confidence. Public confidence can be gained if the Government's policy


operates and is seen to operate on the basis clearly set out by the Home Secretary. I wish to put the right hon. Gentleman's words on the record once again. In answer to a Question from me he said:
My policy, which I have stated on a number of occasions and repeat now, is that there is, in present or any foreseeable circumstances, a strict limit on the amount of immigration that this country can absorb. It is right and generally accepted that the rules have to be administered with a reasonable humanity—and problems of humanity do arise. Together with that strong control over immigration, we must have a most determined and liberal policy of complete equality for those settled in this country. I regard these matters as two sides of the same coin."—[Official Report, 12th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 596.]
I wholeheartedly support that statement, both personally and on behalf of the Conservative Party.
On that basis I want to raise two questions which are vital to the success of the Bill and to race relations policy in general. First, is the policy of strict control of immigration working satisfactorily and, secondly, is it seen to be doing so? In that context I wish to raise two important issues, namely, illegal immigration together with overstaying, and immigration statistics. It cannot be said too often that if illegal immigration and over staying were to be taking place on any substantial scale they would destroy any race relations policy. It would render a Bill of this sort of little value, and would be monstrously unfair to those families from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan who have come here legally and who wish to settle in our midst as full British citizens.
Of course I know that the Home Secretary wishes to see illegal immigration rooted out. I also accept that some of the wilder rumours of the numbers evading the controls and over-staying can be discounted. Nevertheless, I must tell the House, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State that there is real public anxiety and that there is a case to be investigated and answered. I want to refer to an article that was published in the Daily Telegraph on 26th February. The remarks contained in it have been underlined by Mr. Deedes who at one time was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, whom everyone knows and admires, and who took a considerable

interest in this subject. The article by Mr. Barry O'Brien says:
Indians, Pakistanis and East African Asians trying to get into Britain have found an easy way to beat immigration controls. They come in as visitors for six months or less and stay on…They troop in endlessly through the arrival terminals at Heathrow, some at least on every flight from India, Pakistan, Africa and the West Indies, and many flights are filled by them.
The article continues:
Airline and airport staff whose work brings them into continual contact with this daily round-the-clock influx laugh when they read Home Office statistics putting the number of immigrant settlers at 50,000 a year.
These are important matters and cannot be written off.

Mr. Bidwell: There is a great danger that the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks will be misconstrued by those who have no close acquaintance with the problems that exist in my constituency and at Heathrow Airport. The right hon. Gentleman should be clear about what that means and not refer to an article that was published in the Daily Telegraph. He should be clear what the realities are. There is tight control over immigration and there has been for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that a stream of people come in. That is not the case.

Mr. Whitelaw: I did not say that at all. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) will give me the benefit of listening to what I say. I said that that is what an article says is happening. I have not said whether it is true or not. If an article of this sort is published in a reputable newspaper which has a wide circulation, inevitably it raises questions and one would be hiding one's head in the sand if one pretended that it did not and does not present a case to be answered.

Mrs. Helene Hayman: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the need to review vast generalisations of that sort. Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the vast majority of those who come here on visitors' permits comply with the conditions and go home within the time laid down?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must tell the hon. Lady that the question I am raising relates to what is said by many people, and it


is no use pretending that this is not something felt on a very widespread basis. This may not be happening. I do not know whether it is happening or not. I do not believe that the hon. Lady knows whether or not it is happening. I doubt whether the Home Secretary or the Minister of State knows whether or not it is happening. If these claims can be rebutted, so much the better. But if they have any substance, I hope that very firm counter-action will be taken immediately, and that proper checks will be instituted to prevent overstaying. Surely that makes absolute sense.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be one law for people resident in this country having visitors from abroad and another law for another group of visitors merely because their skin happens to be another colour?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, I am not suggesting any such thing. That sort of question shows how important it is calmly to consider—and for the Home Secretary and the Minister of State to consider—whether or not these claims are right. It is no good this House trying to remove arguments of this sort, or trying to pretend that people studying the matter, such as Mr. Deedes, can be disregarded. They cannot be disregarded. We do not do ourselves any service in this House by disregarding them. Therefore, I hope that this matter will be looked into.
Now I want to say something with which the hon. Gentleman and others, I hope, will agree. Surely it is only if these public doubts can be set at rest that the position and the security of those who come from the New Commonwealth who are here already will be fully safeguarded. Surely that is true. Surely that is important, and surely it is right that if there are stories of this sort they should be rebutted if they can be rebutted, and that action is taken if they are right. To put our heads in the sand and to pretend that these stories have no foundation and that these things are not happening will do us no good in the end, because if they are then found to be correct, we shall all be engulfed in a great wave of anger from people who say that we have hidden the truth from them. That will do us no good whatsoever.

Mr. Lawson: Quite apart from the people about whom my right hon. Friend is talking, does he not agree that there is considerable cause for disquiet that even on the official figures the rate of entry of people from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan accepted for settlement in this country has risen by 60 per cent. in the past two years?

Mr. Thomas Torney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you kindly point out to me where in the Bill immigration is mentioned?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that when I consider that the right hon. Gentleman is going out of order I shall make reference to that. A Second Reading debate allows a fairly wide general debate on the whole question.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is only fair for me to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Home Secretary himself made it perfectly clear in his opening speech that the climate in which the Bill operated and the way in which the whole race relations policy reacted was an essential feature that we had to consider when looking at the Bill. I have thought it only right—and I make no apology for this—to follow up what I said in relation to the Home Secretary's original statement and to consider the two questions that I have raised. I am now coming to the second question.
The second question concerns what is known as illegal immigration, and, indeed, overstaying. We have to face these matters. Here again, on 2nd February 1976, the Home Secretary, in answer to Mr. Robin Day in a television interview, said words to this effect:
I believe absolutely firmly the people of this country must be told the truth about what is happening and anyone who tries to conceal that is doing a great disservice to himself, his Government and his country.
Again, I agree entirely with the Home Secretary's words. I know that he is absolutely genuine in seeking to fulfil that undertaking. Unfortunately, however, he is faced with a continuing argument about the statistics between what I might call the settlement figure school and the net figure school. The public confusion was certainly increased by the


widely publicised error in relation to the figures. The Home Secretary must appreciate that statistical arguments, whoever is right, usually end in a bemused public concluding that there is something fishy about the whole business.
It is against that background that the Home Secretary now has to fulfil his undertaking and restore public confidence. First, I believe that he must publish Sir Claud Moser's report, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman or the Minister of State will give an undertaking to that effect. However, wider issues are involved. Not only do the public have a right to know exactly what is happening. Those of us who discuss and determine policy on their behalf can do so effectively only if we know the full facts. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has written an important article in The Times today following his visit to the West Indies. What he says raises many important issues, both for us and for the West Indies. I hope that his article will be carefully considered by the Home Secretary and widely discussed.
Articles such as this raise the basic question on the general problem: how can we be sure that the basic requirement of the Home Secretary's policy, a really strict control of immigration, is being met unless we can have statistics presented on a widely acceptable and understandable basis?
For these reasons, I believe that we need a totally independent inquiry into the way in which immigration statistics are collected, compiled and presented. I ask the Home Secretary to set up such an inquiry as soon as possible and so enable us to get away from all the arguments and to make a completely fresh start which will rebuild public confidence and give us an opportunity to reassess the working of the policy of strict immigration control.
This would be wise action to take at a time when the Home Secretary has rightly said that he is about to consider proposals for revising the British nationality laws. Provided that the first part of the Home Secretary's basic statement of policy is successfully implemented and can gain public confidence, I believe in principle that legislation has a part to play in fufilling the second.
In its Report for Session 1974–75 on the organisation of race relations administration, the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration called for a clear and demonstrable Government commitment to equal rights. In general—here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—this Bill gives that commitment. I hope that I can strengthen it by supporting fully the principle of equal rights on behalf of the Opposition.
The Select Committee also recommended that the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission should be merged into a single agency. I know that there are doubts about this agency in some quarters, and I heard what the Home Secretary said. I have come to this matter fresh and I have considered all the arguments very carefully, and I have concluded that this move is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) will deal with the new Commission in more detail if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the end of the debate.
The Home Secretary will have our full support if he takes steps, as a believer in containing public expenditure, to ensure that the new Commission does not spread its wings and that the merger of the two agencies leads, as it surely should, to some streamlining of administration. We shall also wish to question critically the Commission's investigating powers, under Clauses 47 to 51, to ensure that they are not to be used in a bureaucratic and harrying manner.
The Bill also puts forward various proposals in the employment, housing and educational fields, which in general we would support. At the same time, we shall have some questions, some criticisms and some objections, which would be best raised in Committee.
In the rest of my speech I shall concentrate on the major issues on which we disagree with the Bill as it stands. First, Clause 25 refers to
any association of persons
and, more clearly, to clubs. I am grateful for the fair and proper way in which the clause has been explained. It represents a completely revolutionary attitude to the private life of the citizen. Clubs have been held in law to be an extension of the home and an area which should be exempt from Government interference.
I believe it to be an area in which legislation is likely to be counter-productive.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties about associate membership and the difficulties that are caused by such membership. From my membership of various social clubs and golf clubs throughout the country I appreciate the difficulty of defining the real problem areas, but I believe that the Home Secretary has reacted too forcibly to the House of Lords judgment which put some 4,000 working men's clubs beyond the reach of the Race Relations Act 1968.
There is surely a mood of increasing tolerance in such clubs. Such a mood is very much in line with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who reported a general increase of tolerance throughout the country. I think he is right. I believe that that tolerance has entered the feelings of many members of clubs, and that, left to themselves, the vast majority of clubs, be they Labour clubs, Conservative clubs or working men's clubs, would not exercise discrimination on racial grounds. I agree with what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was saying in that regard. Furthermore, clubs which seek to exercise discrimination will come, if my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and others are right, under increasing pressure from their members.
The Home Secretary, having tried to force the pace by means of legislation, is likely to be confronted by procrastination, evasion and plain blocking tactics. The opportunities that are available to those who wish to frustrate this legislation are considerable.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman must be careful about what he says. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) has said, the Working Mens Clubs & Institute Union Ltd. makes it clear to its members that it wishes to comply with the spirit of the legislation.

Mr. Whitelaw: Either I am unable to make my remarks heard, which I think is unlikely, or I have not been clearly understood. I thought I was saying that many clubs would, without legislation, conform to the non-discrimination principle. As

they would conform, I suggest that legislation is better not undertaken. I suggest that it is wrong to introduce it. That is what I thought I was saying. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for giving me the opportunity to repeat it a little louder.

Mr. David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman is putting his argument very fairly. He began by comparing a club to a home. Does he accept that the spread of clubs in our society has changed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the licensing sector the Government have made it clear that in forthcoming legislation the police will have powers of entry to clubs?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to prejudge what will be put forward in future. Any intrusion into this area must be carefully calculated. I accept that the Home Secretary has carefully calculated this intrusion. My argument is that he has been mistaken in so doing. By insisting on legislation in an area where it is quite inappropriate, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will stir up resentment and antagonism at a time when there was a move in the right direction, a move which would have continued. It is a grave mistake to stir up resentment and antagonism. We shall return to this matter in Committee, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman now that I feel that he is making a great mistake in bringing forward the clause. I believe that if it remains in the Bill he will regret it.
Clause 69 deals with incitement to racial hatred, on which we have already had some discussion and a little incident. By means of the clause the Government will be seen to be taking dangerously arbitrary powers, which certain commentators believe have more than a hint of censorship about them.
I shall give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe that they wish to curb the basic right of free speech. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to do so. However, I am bound to tell him that I do not find his argument convincing. The burden of it is that this is an area in which this sort of clause is necessary, and that there is the safeguard that any


prosecution would require the consent of the Attorney-General.
I find that difficult to accept as convincing. It would be a very unsatisfactory piece of legislation which resulted in a spate of frivolous complains by troublemakers being turned down by the Attorney-General. That would be a waste of everyone's time, with no satisfaction for anyone. It would also bring this section of the law into complete disrepute. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again.
There are widespread objections to the clause on the ground of public policy of the broadest nature. I understand the reasons for it being brought forward, but I believe that it is wrong. Those are two clauses which are open to the most serious objection.
In conclusion, I return to the basic climate within which the Bill will operate. The main requirement for the Bill's success is that the Home Secretary gives the public real confidence in his approach to race relations policy as a whole. He must demonstrate clearly that there is strict and effective control of the numbers entering the country. That is as important to the position and security of those who have settled here with their families from the New Commonwealth within the past 20 years as it is to those who have been born and brought up in the United Kingdom.
Provided that the Home Secretary can fulfil that part of his clear compact with the British people, the Bill will play a part in ensuring equal rights for all our citizens. It is because of the Conservative Party's clear commitment to that principle in the interests of future racial harmony that I advise my right hon. Friends not to oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but I must equally warn the right hon. Gentleman that we shall take a strong line in seeking to amend certain parts of it in Committee.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: As Chairman of the Select Committee, I intervene briefly. Many of my Committee colleagues are present, and no doubt they wish to take part in the debate. Previously the Committee has complained of a lack of response to its activities. On this occasion I am sure I can express its appreciation of the

commendable response of my right hon. Friend. He has largely met the expectations and recommendations of the Committee.
My right hon. Friend has confessed that he was hesitant in accepting the Committee's recommendation on community relations officers. I am not surprised about that as it is a matter on which the Committee itself found some difficulty. We have been given some reassurance in that eventually he has come to the same conclusion.
We are dealing with the legislative framework of race relations. I think I can say, speaking for the Committee generally, that by and large our recommendations have been fully accepted with one exception. I do not want to over-commit the members of the Committee because we were solely concerned with questions of organisation. The exception was our recommendation that a statutory obligation should be placed on local authorities to promote equal rights, and that the funding should be done on a county basis. I still feel that that was an important recommendation and no doubt the matter will be seriously considered in Committee.
I have been involved in the issue of race relations for only the last year or so, but my experience confirms what the Home Secretary said. There has been a marked shift in public opinion. I pay tribute to the Race Relations Board, the Community Relations Commission and the host of organisations which have contributed to that end. In short, the views passionately and controversially expressed by Hugh Gaitskell 14 or 15 years ago are now generally accepted. We have now reached a fair measure of agreement and share common ground. In those circumstances what is remarkable is that there is still an urgent need for this legislation in spite of and not withstanding the general overall improvement of race relations. Actual discrimination has continued, with little change or abatement. We are told in the White Paper that the housing conditions of immigrant communiies have hardly improved, that job disadvantages have persisted, and, to use the graphic phrase in the White Paper, there has been
a vicious downward spiral of deprivation.
Before the 1965 legislation we had the PEP Report which influenced public


opinion then. Once again we have a similar Report which dramatically and convincingly demonstrates that job levels are substantially lower for the immigrant communities, that earnings are lower and that we have an alarming proportion of young West Indians unemployed and homeless. The housing accommodation of immigrant communities is inferior and they are still suffering marked disadvantages in obtaining council housing.
All this calls for the strengthening and improvement of legislation, as the Bill sets out to do. But what must concern members of the Select Committee is not what is in the Bill but what cannot be contained in the Bill—namely, a clear, unambivalent, effective Government lead against discrimination. That has been continuously lacking in the past decade.
After the 1965 legislation the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants warned us:
…without some positive action on the part of the Government and local authorities the voluntary initiatives…would prove insufficient.
Now, after the 1968 legislation, we have the two statutory bodies giving us similar warnings. Both the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission complained to the Select Committee of a growing lack of confidence and attributed the situation to the lack of any Government lead. The Commission said:
It can urge the Government to do things, but if when it urges them to do things there is really little response, its credibility and authority are inevitably diminished.
The Home Secretary said that our Report was trenchant. I wish to call attention to one or two of the disturbing things to which we called attention. The remarkable fact is that the number of reports and recommendations pigeonholed in the Home Office now totals 300, a considerable achievement. Our Report also reveals the paucity of provision—indeed the provision is shockingly inade-quote—made in Government Departments regarding race relations. We have had an encouraging response from the Government, in their White Paper and again today from the Home Secretary, but it remains mainly declaratory. What we need to supplement the action we are now taking in Parliament is action to

implement the Select Committee's recommendations on departmental responsibility, administration, ethnic communities and in particular on monitoring and urban aid.
I promised to be brief, and I shall conclude by reminding the House of the Select Committee's conclusion:
Race discrimination and race prejudice are still widespread. The fact that much of the discrimination and prejudice is covert, negligent, or unintentional does not make this less harmful, and it is aggravated by growing lack of confidence among the ethnic communities, especially the young—the second generation non-immigrant population. Consequently there is a risk of the communities becoming permanently alienated. What is needed, above everything else, is a clear and demonstrable Government commitment to equal rights. We are aware of both the need of the provision of greater resources and the present necessity of economy in public spending. Our recommendations are devised to obtain the maximum return from a very limited increase in expenditure. Moreover, if severe restraint on public expenditure is to be accepted—as it is accepted by the Committee—this demands the selective and most effective use of resources: a competent administration capable of making the right choices is essential.
I fully support the Bill. We need meaningful support for this measure by an immediate implementation of the Select Committee's recommendations.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not know whether the House will divide on Second Reading, but, if it does, I shall vote against the Second Reading—and for the same reason for which I, along with almost the whole of the rest of the Conservative Party, voted against the Second Reading of its predecessor, which is largely absorbed into the framework of this Bill.
The reason we voted against the measure on that occasion, the Second Reading on St. George's Day 1968, was that the Bill would
not in its practical application contribute to the achievement of racial harmony."—[Official Report, 23rd April 1968; Vol. 763, c. 81.]
If anything, that argument applies with greater force now, in 1976, to the present Bill. This Bill is even more irrelevant to the real problems and dangers entailed on this country by the inflow from the New Commonwealth during the last quarter of a century.
To watch the Government and this House, against the background of that


problem, considering this legislation is like watching a person who in the presence of a great and growing danger resolutely turns his back on it and faces steadfastly in the opposite direction.
In a speech at the beginning of January I criticised the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for the fact that the data that used to be given of the proportion of births by locality to mothers from the New Commonwealth were no longer published. I criticised that omission in rather sharp terms, and I am glad to take the opportunity of acknowledging that the omission was repaired after the gratifying lapse of only three weeks—I do not suggest any relationship of cause and effect—by the publication of the first OPCS Monitor, as it is called. which gives, for the six years from 1969 to 1974, the proportion, not only nationally but place by place, between the number of births to mothers born in the New Commonwealth or Pakistan and total births.
There we can see in terms of six years an unmistakable picture. Naturally, I look first to Wolverhampton, and see that the figure runs steadily each year around 25 per cent., as I know it had been running for many years before the series commenced. The figure for Birmingham runs at 17 or 18 per cent. Leicester, which entered late into the race, rose in those six years from 18, through 19, 20, 23, 25 to 26 per cent. I shall only trouble the House further with certain of the figures from inner London—Brent, 36 per cent.; Ealing, 34 per cent.; Haringey, 34 per cent.; Hackney, 33 per cent.; and Lambeth 30 per cent.
These percentages, of course, are not the full proportion of what popularly would be called "coloured births". In these years children were also being born to mothers who had indeed been born here, but were as much New Commonwealth in all but a technical sense as the mothers of the children to which these figures relate.
So there, in these percentages, we see before our eyes the creation of a whole generation of which this is the minimum proportion—the grossly understated minimum proportion—which is New Commonwealth. I remember that six, eight and 10 years ago, when the figure for an individual year was produced from such places as Birmingham or Wolverhampton,

all the experts said, "Take no notice of that. It is just a passing phenomenon." It was not a passing phenomenon. Over these years a whole generation has been built up and is now approaching its completion. Such a generation having been built up, with that proportion thus constituted, foreshadows automatically the minimum proportion of the whole population in the future.
I repeat that I have never myself at any stage in any discussion on this matter assumed any higher birth rate on the part of the immigrant or non-European population than of the rest. I have always rigorously worked upon the assumption, be it a minimum assumption or not, of taking the birth rate to be the same.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): If that is indeed the case would the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the real difference, if there is a difference, between the birth rate of those who came from the New Commonwealth and those who are indigenous is caused because of the different age structure of those who are present in this country and the proportionately higher number of women of child-bearing age amongst New Commonwealth immigrants than amongst indigenous people?

Mr. Powell: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have understood the point. We are not talking about birth rates. We are not talking about the proportion of number of births to relevant population, which is what birth rate means. We are talking about the proportion of the births of a particular year which are of a certain kind and a certain origin, and adding one year to another until we reach a whole generation of 25 years. We are talking about the composition of a generation—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon indicated dissent—

Mr. Powell: —there is no point in the Minister shaking his head—and that composition must automatically reproduce itself for the whole population even upon the assumption, which I have always been prepared to make, that there is no difference between the birth rate of this section of the population and of the rest.
Moreover, this element—the one-third of our cities coloured, about which a former Home Secretary told the House of Lords some eight or 10 years ago—is being increased by an annual influx assessed at a minimum of 50,000. Note that I am not working upon the net intake figures here; I am working upon the figures which are preferred by the Home Office. At that minimum rate this element of our population is being increased year in and year out.
That is the background which is seen by the people of this country in the large areas which are affected. That is the background against which we must consider the Bill.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Dr. M. S. Miller rose—

Mr. Powell: I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me because I have given an undertaking about time, which I am endeavouring to keep.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an explanation, if he has one, for the undoubted fact that 70 years ago when similar strictures were made against another influx of population into this country—Jewish immigrants—the numbers of Jews who are in this country now are no higher than they were in those days?

Mr. Powell: I happen to have the figures but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has them. The net intake of Jewish population in the 25 years before the first World War was 150,000 made up of a gross intake of 200,000 minus a re-emigration of 50,000. There was a further intake estimated at 50,000 during Hitler's years, and the total Jewish population of this country at present, according to the Jewish authorities, is estimated at under half a million. I defy anyone to suppose that he can see any analogy between those facts and that situation and what we are talking about here.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose—

Mr. Powell: I have to ask the hon. Gentleman's indulgence. I know that the hon. Member, coming from North Aberdeen, comes from an area which is very much affected by these problems—like Down, South However, I ask for

the indulgence of the House to enable me to keep my remarks brief.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who over the years has given great personal attention to this whole matter, made a speech which was reported in The Times of 14th January at the London School of Economics. He said that discrimination and deprivation would produce a state of affairs—I hope his words were quoted correctly and literally—
which ought to send a shudder down our spines. It is a thing called segregation, not legal or enforced or even well-defined or precise, but segregation nevertheless. There are signs that this is possible and indeed once it happens the process is well nigh irreversible.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It ought, as he said, to send a shiver down our spines when, in terms of the facts I have placed before the House, we see existing and growing this massive segregation. But the notion that, in its present form or its future potentialities, it will be affected by legislation of this sort is a ludicrous hallucination. This massive segregation is not arising because of discrimination—certainly not of any discrimination which it is within the power of the law to influence or remove. It is arising because of the combination between human nature on one hand and the mass and size of the original movement itself and the rate of its continuance on the other.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) quoted a former colleague of ours, William Deedes, now the editor of the Daily Telegraph, who said on Second Reading of the preceding Bill in 1968:
I cannot believe that bad social practices can be remedied by the law made in this Bill, so much of which is bad. Rather I fear that in some respects they will flourish in an atmosphere of resentment."—[Official Report, 23rd April 1968; Vol. 763, c. 88.]
If I thought the effects of the Bill were likely to be neutral, if it were mere waste of time, I do not think I would trouble to go into the Lobby against it. However, as William Deedes said on that occasion, there is more to it than that. It is, by its nature, counter-productive. It is counter-productive because the creation of new rights creates new grievances. Make no mistake, this new legislation creates new rights. Those who


came into this country as immigrants instantly inherited all the traditional and fought-for rights of the inhabitants of this country—

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: I cannot give way. I have explained why, in fairness to others, I must not do so now.
Those immigrants came into the possession of those rights; but the purpose of this legislation is to create new rights, new remedies, which the inhabitants of this country have never enjoyed and never sought, for the sake of this new and growing element which is amongst us. But the creation of new rights in response to such a situation simply creates the ground for new "resentment", to use William Deedes' word, and new grievances.
Let there be no misunderstanding. The search for new grievance is eternal. There is no limit to the grievances which can be found by those who are determined to find them. [Interruption.] I wish that Labour Members could shout this problem away from this land.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Which problem?

Mr. Powell: Let the hon. Member ask his constituents.
We are here by what we do exacerbating the consequences and intensifying the nature of the segregation to which the hon. Member for Norwood referred.

Mr. Whitelaw: Mr. Whitelaw rose—

Mr. Powell: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I must not discriminate, must I? I am now on my last few words.
Even worse than the consequences of creating grievance by creating new rights in response to this situation, a greater evil of this Bill is that, instead of addressing itself to what is actually happening, a subject which has not been debated for the last five years, this House is showing that it still prefers to turn its back and hide its head. That is the real evil of a Second Reading for this Bill.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard: I do not propose to reply in any great detail to the speech by the right hon. Member for

Down, South (Mr. Powell) I must take up one point in his speech, however. In many ways the main burden of what he said was that one of the effects of this legislation will be to create new rights for those who have come to this country as immigrants. He suggested that these were new rights which are not enjoyed by the people of this country. That is perfectly true. The Bill gives rights to people who need those rights. Those rights are not required by the mass of the population because it does not suffer discrimination. The entire point of this Bill is that a certain section of our population which is at a grave disadvantage because of its origins by the actions of a very small and prejudiced section of our population requires protection. It is by no means paradoxical that certain special rights should be provided for them.
In one respect, to a certain extent, I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that the Bill will make an enormous difference. I do not believe that it will reduce by a large number the total acts of discrimination in any one year. I wish that we could pass a Bill to have that effect, but neither this nor any other Bill will succeed in that aim.
The introduction of this Bill, however, is a symbolic act of very great importance. The importance is that it expresses the determination of the Government and, I hope, the House to the country as a whole and, above all, to members of the ethnic minorities here that the people who have come to this country in the past 10 or 20 years are accepted as fully equal citizens of this country, that they will enjoy equal rights and, above all, that redress will be provided for them in any case where they think they have suffered an act of discrimination by other members of the population.
I regret that the Opposition will be abstaining rather than supporting the Bill, even though they say that they are equally concerned about the principle of equal rights for all members of our community. I regret, too, that the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) devoted so much of his speech to the question of immigration, which, although important, is by no means wholly relevant to the purposes of the Bill.
I welcome the Bill, and I welcome that it extends the definition of discrimination to cover so-called acts of indirect discrimination—in other words, the demanding of conditions of various kinds which, although not discriminatory, in practice have the effect of acting against certain members of our population and of particular communities. I welcome the fact that the definition is extended to include nationality.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, I welcome that this Bill, as distinct from the previous Act, extends the legislation to cover private clubs. That is not so tremendous a change in principle as has been suggested in some newspapers and elsewhere. Private clubs are subject to the laws of this country in very many ways—the licensing laws and other laws. To say that private clubs should not discriminate in this way between members of one racial group and another is not so different from saying that private landlords should not be allowed to discriminate in that way. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) says, the clubs are themselves willing voluntarily to abandon discrimination of this kind, I cannot see why they should resent so bitterly the fact that it should be made a matter of law.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is an interesting point because there is not that much to divide us here. My main point is that this kind of legislation can be counterproductive and create fresh resentment.

Mr. Luard: I very much doubt whether that is the case. If the members of these clubs know that in any case the Club and Institute Union will take this step, that their own clubs are shortly to become open to members of all races, I doubt whether they will feel particularly resentful that the provision is about to become law anyway.
The next point of the Bill about which I had initial misgivings is the basic decision to unite the functions of the existing Community Relations Commission and the Race Relations Board in the Race Relations Commission. My misgivings arose because I believed that both of these institutions were performing important functions, and I was not completely sure that those functions could

be performed equally well by one institution. The advantages of simplicity and unification outweigh the significant disadvantages of uniting them, and I am reconciled in particular by the provisions of Clause 65 which is the key to the entire Bill. It is the most important single provision and gives the proposed Commission functions altogether unlike those previously performed by the Board, functions which are more necessary than any others in this country at present.
I have doubts about some aspects of the Bill. One of the most important provisions of the Bill is that which puts members of minority communities on a similar basis to other people in our society so that they can bring cases in the courts when they feel they have suffered discrimination. It is an advance that they should no longer be under the tutelage of the Board. If they have the resources and ability, they will be able to bring a case in the courts. However, I think the number of cases which will be brought in this way will be very small because of the difficulty, expense, unpleasantness and, perhaps above all, the publicity involved. This will deter the overwhelming majority of people who feel they have suffered discrimination and would like to take some action. They will be reluctant to embark on this course.
It is important to have a set-up for conciliation in race relations and it is of the greatest importance that the Commission should retain this role. I hope some cases will be brought in the courts and that there may be some lawyers who will become known as willing to take such cases. I hope that local community relations councils might also help individuals to bring cases and, of course, the Commission will give some assistance. However, there will be many cases in which conciliation is a better answer and that is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill which give the new Commission certain powers in this respect.
It is important that the Commission should interpret these powers generously. I hope it will be willing to give the maximum support and not feel inhibited by what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said about it not being distracted from its main role of undertaking general inquiries. I am not sure that that work should be its main role. Helping


people to pursue complaints is almost as important, and I hope that members of the Commission will read the report of this debate and the views of individual hon. Members.
I hope the role of conciliation will also be undertaken in many cases by local community relations councils with the help of community relations officers. I am sure that many complainants would rather have their cases dealt with in this way instead of going to all the trouble and difficulty of bringing a case in the courts.
I am concerned about the need for a body to monitor the effect of legislation on immigrant communities. The new Commission will have a role of this kind, but it is important that local authorities, which have many important functions affecting members of ethnic minorities, should be asked to make regular reports to the Home Office or the Commission with their judgment of how minority communities in their areas have been affected by legislation and what action they are taking to improve the situation.
I take a different view from that of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border on the subject of incitement to racial hatred. Although the proposed change is an improvement. I am not convinced that it will allow very many more cases of this kind to be brought. There will be considerable problems in bringing prosecutions because of the need to prove that a publication is liable to stir up racial hatred. Hatred is a very strong word, and any lawyer would find it difficult to prove that the effect of an article or poster was to stir up a feeling of hatred in the minds of those who saw it. Such a publication might, nevertheless, have a very damaging effect on race relations and could stir up racial ill-feeling or prejudice. I hope the Government will consider amending the Bill to replace the words "racial hatred" with "racial ill-feeling" or something similar which might increase the possibility of prosecutions being brought.
Under the Bill, some cases will be dealt with in the county courts and others, involving industry or industrial relations, will be heard by industrial tribunals. In this matter, it is important that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, and some members of ethnic minorities may occasionally feel that these tribunals

are dominated by employers or trade union officials who may not be as concerned to prevent discrimination as they should be. It is important that there should be representatives of minorities on these tribunals if they are to win the confidence of immigrants in the way most of us would hope.
There is another important matter which has been put forcibly by the Runny-mede Trust and with which I know the Minister of State agrees. The main problems suffered by members of ethnic minorities probably do not result from acts of discrimination. Like other people living in the inner areas of our cities, their main problems concern housing, education, social services and similar matters. More than anything else, they need government action to help with these problems. I know that the Government are concerned to try to improve race relations and the position of minorities in our society and the best thing they could do would be to provide more money for tackling these problems. For instance, more money should be devoted to urban aid programmes and similar schemes. It is important that we consider further measures to deal with these problems.
If we have a generation of young black and brown people in our society who feel that the cards are stacked against them and that society is unfair to them, what will help more than anything is the provision of active assistance and massive funds to enable more effective programmes of that kind to be implemented.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Perhaps I should declare an interest as Vice-Chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration under the admirable leadership of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I also have in my constituency a very large immigrant population of Indians. Given the size of the town concerned—Leamington Spa—it is one of the largest immigrant populations in the country.
Over the past two years, as a member of the Select Committee I have studied the problem closely and found it fascinating. I shall always give my support to moves calculated to improve the climate and the lot of immigrants and all racial minorities in Britain. Generally, I back the objectives of the Bill. However, I am


doubtful on many of its aspects which will need to be examined closely at a later stage.
Parliament should be wary about the "racial hatred" clause extensions. Free speech must be preserved at all times. Parliament should be paramount in preserving free speech. However unpalatable or distasteful free speech may be at certain times to enlightened opinion, we must always allow it. Black people have little faith in the institutions Parliament has set up in recent years to try to deal with racial discrimination, and they have made their views plain to those who have worked in this sphere and to individual Members of Parliament. The Bill, and the new Commission which is to be set up under it, should give them a good deal of encouragement, and I hope that they will respond accordingly.
I am sorry that the Government are not intent on calling the new all-embracing body the Equal Rights Commission, as was suggested by the Select Committee. Instead, it is to be called the Race Relations Commission. The Home Secretary rather missed the point when I interrupted him. We were trying to get across in our Report that nowadays the term "race relations" is emotive in itself. It makes people think of race relations controversy. I see that the Minister of State is smiling—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was smiling only because of the direction in which he looked when he said that.

Mr. Smith: I accept that benign response. It is an emotive phrase. When we can get away from the sterile argument which has gone on for so long about race, and win the good will and support of the ethnic white population of the country, we shall at last begin to make progress in achieving harmonious race relations.
The new Commission needs to be educative and persuasive in its motivation. It must not be too tough and bureaucratic, otherwise the approach will be entirely counter-productive. We do not want hordes of officials instructing people in what they may or may not do. That would invoke the hostility of elements in the white community. People of all colours, white and black, are weary of

the constant proliferation of officialdom in our national life.
I wish to speak more of what is not in the Bill than about its contents. It is a serious error of judgment that the Bill contains no provisions for further curbing immigration or curbing it more successfully. The Home Secretary did not mention that in his speech. It would be a useful quid pro quo for the white population if a positive statement had been made that more would be done to curb immigration. The Government might then get the right kind of response to the Bill from the population. We had a much more positive approach in this direction from my right hon. Friend the Shadow Home Secretary who, I am sure from what he said, understands the point. He underlined the fears and anxieties of many Opposition Members.

Mr. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman asking for curbs on the legal immigration of people entitled to some into the country under the Conservative Government's legislation, or curbs on illegal immigration?

Mr. Smith: That is the trouble about giving way. The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I am just about to say.
After serious consideration, I have come to the view that it is essential in the country's general interests, in the interests of the ethnic majority of the population and, just as important, in the interests of the racial minorities, that further immigration into Britain from the New Commonwealth should be ended at the earliest possible date. Only in cases where there are exceptional compassionate grounds should there be jurisdiction to vary that rule. I say that, having thought it out carefully over a long time, and, irrespective of some hardship which would be caused, it is essential for us to decide on a step which we should have taken a long time ago. Unless we face this responsibility there can be real trouble in the years ahead.
Although I have strong views on it, I say nothing about the present abuse that occurs. No one knows the real facts, but large numbers of visitors come into the country and stay on. There are large numbers of illegal entrants who come in with forged birth certificates or forged passports. All those abuses need to be taken in hand by the Home Office. In


the interests of the nation as a whole, immigration as we have known it, even in the alleged more restricted form over recent years, should be ended. I doubt whether I shall get a response in that direction from the Labour Government, but I hope that the Conservative Party will come round to this point of view. I urge the leaders of my party to do so. It would be very much in the interests of the country and they would be representing the views of three quarters of the population who are by no means racists. The Home Secretary accepted that only a tiny minority of people are racists, as we understand the term.
Successive Governments have created a situation of near-disaster with their unrealistic immigration policies and their inability to keep a proper check on the figures and on the people who come into the country. I do not attack the Minister of State, although he and his Department are vulnerable. It was exactly the same when my party was in power, and it has been the same for a decade or more. It is time that the Home Office pulled up its socks, got its figures and practices right, and stopped the abuse of the procedures.
The time has passed for recrimination about what has happened in the past, whatever we may feel as to the rights or wrongs of what has been done by successive Governments. We must have more positive action to stem the tide, which is far greater than most of us realise. At the same time, we must have a full commitment to complete equality of opportunity for those who have settled here and who are becoming a second generation of British blacks. I yield to no one in my advocacy of that policy.
Although I put forward the suggestion—with which thousands upon thousands of people would agree—that immigration should be ended, there must be a much greater move towards full integration than we have had to date or even than is envisaged in the Bill. We may have differing views about the wisdom of allowing such a vast minority population to be established in this country. There are, in fact, only about four areas concerned—parts of London, the Midlands, Manchester and Bradford. In other parts of the country people have never seen a black face over

the years. There is hardly any immigration at all.
Although we can argue about the wisdom of the way in which immigration took place and its distribution throughout the country, we have to banish for ever any thought that those who are here are in anyway second-class citizens, or that anyone in this nation who is fully entitled to be here, under the laws as they are at the moment, is anything other than a first-class citizen. To think otherwise would be totally obnoxious. The only proviso is that they obey the law, whatever their colour or creed.
We need a new crusade to overcome racial discrimination and to give our fellow Britons who are in the minority a new confidence, which they have singularly lacked over recent years. That crusade could have been provided by the Bill if it had also tackled the question of future immigration into this country. It has not done so, and a valuable opportunity has been lost. The Bill will perhaps do more to irritate than to encourage the population at large.
Some people will say that it is very inhumane to stop dependants coming in—especially as the numbers are trickling off anyway. But we have to realise that for immigrants the criteria are entirely different from those of people with an ethnic white background.
In the Caribbean, where the Select Committee has been recently, we came into contact with the knowledge that there are thousands of illegitimate children. I do not make this as a moral comment, because marriage is not uniform at all in the Caribbean. Most children are born out of wedlock. But there are thousands of illegitimate children there who are anxious to come here. Many of them have a claim to do so, and the line of dependants is long and complicated. Far from trickling off, the dependants could still be coming into this country 100 years from now unless the rules are changed.
The position in respect of India is also extremely difficult. I should like to quote from the courteous reply that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when I raised a constituency case recently. Talking of the generality of the problem, he stated that
dependants and other persons seeking entry here for settlement are currently applying in


such numbers to the British High Commission in New Delhi that despite measures we have taken to help posts in India to keep abreast of their work, there is now a delay of about 14 months between the date of receipt of the application and the date of interview by the Entry Certificate Officer. I am very concerned about the length of the list of applicants waiting to be interviewed, which largely results from decisions to allow into this country new categories of immigrants, including husbands and flancþs of women who are already settled here, and applicants under the amnesty arrangments for illegal immigrants. As husbands and fiancés now comprise more than three-quarters of the total number of settlement applicants awaiting interview in New Delhi it has not been possible, nor indeed would it be fair, to make arrangements under which they would be treated as a special category.
People are therefore lining up in large numbers in India, wishing to come here, and this presents a very real problem. Quite apart from the technicalities for the Home Office, it is a problem for Parliament as well.
We have to approach these matters in relation to the background of the New Commonwealth countries concerned. People who have been separated for some years cannot be as close as all that to the relatives they seek to join. No one is seeking to keep them apart. It is perfectly possible for those who want to rejoin their relatives to do so in their country of origin. In cases of exceptional difficulty, the Government should provide sponsoring finance for these people. With the new set of rules and criteria, the Government should be able to approach the problem in a humane and sensible way.
As an indication of my good will and my belief in the need to do more to promote good race relations, I shall not vote against the Bill tonight in the Lobby. I am very tempted to vote in favour of it, although it is dubious in parts. But I shall go on stating what I believe—and what millions of others believe—to be the truth, namely, that the time has now come to call a final halt to immigration as we have known it. Unless we do, we shall find the sands of time running out even faster than we imagine.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the sands of time are running out in the debate. Unless hon. Members make shorter speeches there will be a lot of disappointed people.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble: I do not intend to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith). Suffice it to say that I would never be a member of a party that accepted the separation of spouses and the splitting of families.
I give the Bill full support, particularly in the light of the article that appeared in The Times yesterday, pointing out that in this country an increasing number of people of all races recognise the need for, and the rôle of, legislation.
I feel a personal commitment to the Bill. In the 12 months before I came to the House I supervised an equal opportunities project in the cotton textile industry. I shall be referring to it shortly.
I want to deal particularly now with the part of the Bill dealing with employment. In my view, this is the most important part. In employment we find examples of discrimination more widespread, and in employment it is possible to take the greatest steps to bring an end to discrimination.
If I have a disappointment with the Bill, it is that it is very largely a negative force. It tends to outlaw discrimination, and we need positive movements towards integration. It is in employment that we have the greatest mixing of races and of people coming together. When they leave work they tend to go back into their own communities.
In employment there is the greatest possibility of developing a shared culture—the culture of the workplace. It is here that there is a possibility for language development among immigrants. But these developments are possible only if adequate safeguards are introduced, as in the Bill, and if, in addition, there are adequate aids for people in the immigrant community. As things stand, this kind of development of integration is at best hampered and at worst unlikely to take place.
I have bored the House at great length in the last 18 months on the subject of cotton textiles, but the industry has something to show the country in this context. Immigrants have been attracted into the cotton sector over the last 150 years. In recent years these have been mainly of non-United Kingdom origin,


namely, from Asia. They are concentrated in the spinning sector of the industry. Unfortunately, they are concentrated very largely in the worst-paid jobs. They are concentrated very largely on the night shift. In some mills, 60 per cent. of the total labour force is of Asian origin, and on some night shifts 100 per cent. of the labour force is of Asia origin. This concentration is not deliberate; it is something that has happened.
The immigrants have been attracted to these jobs because, generally speaking, there were vacancies there, and the pay was better, so that they could send money home to their families. Nevertheless, this concentration is extremely unhealthy, just as the barriers to promotion and advancement in the industry are unhealthy. Out of this I believe that a very dangerous situation can develop.

Mr. Alison: I am listening to the hon. Member's first-hand report with great interest, knowing that it is based on real experience. Can the hon. Member tell us whether the phenomena of exclusive night work and difficulty in relation to promotion are due to overt, or unconscious, or any other form of discrimination?

Mr. Noble: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment I shall come to that point.
We have now reached the stage at which we are dealing with the second generation—the children of immigrants, who have come through with skills and with a language facility. The barriers to promotion that exist have been based partly on discrimination. The textile industry is a very traditional industry, with tightly-knit groups, on both the trade union and the employers' sides. There have undoubtedly been barriers to promotion, but equally there have been barriers caused by language difficulties.
We have reached a stage, also, where the social barriers, as opposed to the language barriers, are important. We have a situation in which second generation children are leaving school—children who have command of the language and have the qualifications, but are unable to break through this barrier. Dr. Alan Little, head of the Reference and Technical Services Division of the Community Relations Commission, was

quoted in The Times yesterday as saying that
Many black youngsters were leaving school not equipped for employment in a shrinking labour market in which they faced discrimination. 'You have a lot of disappointed, depressed people,' he said. He agreed that black youngsters born here were in revolt against the shift work that their fathers did as immigrants.
The question is, how far does this Bill go to deal with that problem? If we do not get the job part of the situation right we shall not get the rest of the situation right. First, the Bill inserts negative controls, making it unlawful to discriminate in employment. It gives permissive powers for employers to train people of a particular racial group to help fit them for a particular kind of work. That is excellent as far as it goes, but we have to take positive steps. We need positive integration policies. We have to have employers and unions not just coming together and signing a declaration but taking active steps to promote integration.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is happening in the trade union movement? A high proportion are members of trade unions. Compared with 47 per cent. for the indigenous population, the immigrant percentage is 61.

Mr. Noble: I accept that, but it is a question not only of being a member of a trade union but of taking an active rôle and obtaining positions in trade unions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard), who said that if we are to get social advancement we need resources, and if we are to get advancement in employment we need resources—but the financial effects of this Bill are not mentioned. The work can be carried out—I would tell my hon. Friend on the Front Bench that he need not ask the Treasury for funds—by the training boards. It is there that employers and trade unions are represented.
I want to say a few words about a pilot project, as an example. Before the project was developed, we had the background of the Mansfield Hosiery dispute and the Imperial Typewriters dispute. We had had simmerings of a similar kind in the cotton textile industry. Therefore, a project was developed as a result of a partnership between employers on the


one hand and the trade unions on the other, with the training board as a catalyst, providing "body". The trade unions took much of the early initiative, and eventually financial support was secured from the Social Policy Committee of the European Economic Community. In mounting the project great care was necessary, and it was the careful preparation of the project that was responsible for its success.
We had an industrial conference of employers, unions and the training board, at which it was unanimously agreed that a project, designed as a pilot scheme, at least initially, should be launched. There was unanimous agreement on the desirability of a project on immigrant integration in the workplace. It was agreed that the establishment of a promotion ladder was essential in the industry. We decided that there should be three strands to the project. First, there should be a language training course for immigrants, based on the language used in the workplace. This is one area in which there is a mixing of races—an area in which people can see that it is economically and socially useful. We developed an oral language course at the workplace, based, as far as possible, on visual material. We did not touch literacy. The course ran for five days a week, for 10 weeks, providing 50 hours' tuition, one hour per day. The employers paid for employees to attend and the commitment of the people tutoring was absolutely first-rate.
Secondly, we mounted a course for immigrant leaders—people who could be identified as natural leaders in the immigrant community but who at work are seldom recognised for promotion. These are people who deal with translation and interpretation at the workplace—people to whom an immigrant will go, rather than to his supervisor, when he is in trouble. That course dealt with trade unions, industrial relations, safety, and so on. We mounted a course for managers and supervisors in industry, designed to illustrate the kind of problems that immigrants encountered in their indigenous background. These courses were successfully carried through.
What were the effects of the project? The first and most measurable effect was an improvement in the morale and efficiency of those among the immigrant

community who had been on the language training course. They then sought local authority facilities. Sometimes, regrettably, these were not available, but the immigrants had been motivated to advance. We had modified success with the course for immigrant leaders, and—very important—we had substantial success with the course for managers and supervisors, who, having made highly prejudicial statements at the beginning of the course, were saying, at the end of it, "We should have been doing this eight or 10 years ago".
This demands resources, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have serious conversations with his right hon. Friend and with the Secretary of State for Employment, who I see has some responsibility for the Bill, encouraging him to meet training board chairmen, industry by industry, and tell them "If this Bill is to have any success at all the training boards must carry out this responsibility". I ask my hon. Friend whether he will give this kind of positive encouragement towards integration instead of dealing simply with negative controls against discrimination. When we take those steps we are taking steps towards a truly civilised society, and in those circumstances a measure of this kind may some day not be required.

6.28 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: This Bill is being debated in a context where balance is essential, and it is the balance between concern for race relations and concern for an immigration policy that will be acceptable to the country at large. If we lose sight of these two factors we are not dealing with this issue in terms which the country will understand.
The 1965 Act and 1968 Act—and I served on the Standing Committee on both Bills—were concerned with problems new to this country. They were pioneering Acts, and one succeeded the other because the first Act was inadequate in dealing with discrimination. It is now some seven years later and the time has come for a review.
Those Acts sought to outlaw certain practices of racial discrimination which were judged to be harmful not only to the minority group but also to the host community—practices which, if allowed to develop, would have undermined the quality of life in the whole community,


especially the qualities of tolerance and fairness as between individuals. Above all, those Acts aimed to eliminate discriminatory practices which, if allowed to continue, would have produced a large group of second-class citizens.
Those of us who, on both sides of this House, supported those Acts hoped that by the bringing to an end of a wide range of discriminatory practices, attitudes also would change. It is one of the great myths that laws do not change attitudes. Laws changing practices do, after an interval, change attitudes also. I suggest that some of those hopes have been justified. The general indication of PEP's national survey, "The Facts of Racial Disadvantages", supports the view that public attitudes in Britain in this field have becomes more tolerant. Although there have been special strains in special areas, to which some hon. Members with constituencies which are deeply involved have referred, I agree with what was said by hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) about the limited areas of intolerance and the widespread tolerance on this issue throughout Britain.
However, this survey, and the findings of the Race Relations Board, the Community Relations Council and the Select Committee outlined areas in which important discrimination is still widely practised—in particular, in employment, which is the key sector, and in housing. That is why, seven years after the 1968 Act which dealt with these subjects, it is right to consider carefully and in detail additional measures put forward to check direct and indirect racial discrimination in those areas where existing laws are, after a fair trial, proving to be inadequate, but I am far from convinced by the arguments so far put forward in support of two of the provisions of the Bill.
The first concerns the amalgamation of the Community Relations Commission with the Race Relations Board. These two bodies have quite distinct functions and responsibilities. I am glad that the Home Secretary recognised that there was an arguable case for keeping these two bodies separate.
The second provision concerns clubs. I believe that a real distinction must be made between those which have virtually been open to anyone in certain employ-

ment in a certain area and those which are based on selection by personal qualities and common ranges of interest and, usually, on limited numbers. Despite the welcome assurances which have been given by the Home Secretary on the protection of the right of members of a club to elect solely on grounds of personal acceptability, I am not convinced that a case has been made out for the provisions in Clause 25. This issue will need to be carefully considered in Committee. I hope that the Home Secretary will keep an open mind on how far the law should be allowed to intrude into this sensitive area of human relations.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Dr. M. S. Miller rose—

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Both hon. Gentlemen are hoping to get into the debate. Interruptions only cause delay.

Sir G. Sinclair: The provisions of the Bill will be effective only if they have public backing, and especially they call for leads by the Government, employers and trade unions. All three have more to do in this area than they have done in recent years.
But there is another major issue in this debate today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) has restated the Conservative Party's attitude on this matter. Since 1965 the consistent view of Conservative Party spokesmen has been that a balance should be struck between the interests of the immigrant minorities and the host community.
In opening the debate, the Secretary of State said that there was a clear limit to the number of immigrants who could be absorbed into this country. The balance which we have always advocated was that, on the one hand, all who were citizens of this country, either through immigration or birth, should enjoy equal rights; that there should be no second-class citizens; and that there should be protection against discrimination on grounds of colour. The Bill seeks to take that process a stage further.
The other part of the balance or compact was that there should be the strictest control over new immigration. That was repeated by us in every debate. I think


that both major parties have been culpable in not being stricter in carrying out their part of the compact. I believe that strict control is essential to give the host community, especially in areas of heavy immigrant concentration, confidence to adjust to the changes and strains that they have felt, and confidence that those strains would not be increased by increased immigration of those coming here to seek work. My view is that that part of the compact has not been kept as fully as the people of this country had a right—and, indeed, were led—to expect.
There is a fairly widespread feeling that this Government have deliberately eased controls and allowed an inflow far in excess of what people had a right to expect from Government statements of policy. If this feeling is justified, there has been a serious breach of faith by the Government. Widespread unemployment at this time is another issue which only exacerbates this problem.
I believe that we are entitled to two assurances from the Home Secretary in the clearest terms. The first is that there has been no relaxation of controls and that tighter controls will be built up. I believe that many hon. Members will seek the same assurance.
The second assurance is that far stronger measures will be taken to check the flow of illegal immigrants and people who overstay their permits. I know, from serving on the Select Committee for six years continuously, how difficult these controls are both to devise and to enforce. As a Select Committee, we visited most of the countries from which most immigrants orginate, but we must have the assurances for which I have asked. Otherwise the failures on both issues will undermine the confidence of the host community and lead to worse race relations. In the interests of both the immigrant communities now established here and the host community, measures must be taken to remedy these faults.
I believe that there is strong support on both sides of the House for measures to reduce racial discrimination, but there is also a widespread demand throughout the country for the strictest possible control of immigration and a full disclosure of the facts demanded by my

hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I assure the Home Secretary that we on the Liberal Bench support the Bill. We believe that his intentions are right, despite our reservations about certain features of the Bill and our belief that it can be improved. We share the general view that legislation alone cannot solve this problem although, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), it can have a significant influence in changing attitudes.
This Government, to some extent, are judged by the minority community on past deeds and misdeeds. The minority community views with considerable concern, suspicion and resentment some aspects of the legislation brought in by the Labour Government in 1968, because it was of a distinctly discriminatory character. They had much the same kind of resentment about the Conservative Government's legislation in 1971, with its overtly discriminatory patrial clause. This Government have undone some of that past mischief by indicating that they are prepared to show compassion for husbands in the way that the rules are applied and that they do not want the 1971 Act applied retrospectively.
Those who want fair, compassionate and non-discriminatory legislation are not advocating the abandonment or relaxation of proper controls over those who have no right to come here at all: everybody has an interest in control being satisfactory. At the same time, it is in nobody's interest that there should be seen, or even be thought to be, discrimination. It is important to realise that the other side of getting successful anti-discrimination laws rests with the minority community. Something has been said about the genuine fears and anxieties of the indigenous community. The fears and anxieties of the minority communities are there as well, and some of them will never be removed until the whole question of British nationality is properly sorted out. The Government have indicated that it is their wish to do this, but until there is clear nationality legislation we shall continue to face argument, anxiety, fear and uncertainty about


who is entitled to be in this country and what his or her status is. That kind of insecurity is good for no community.
In one sense the Bill is particularly welcome. Unlike previous legislation of its kind, it is not a counter-balance or accompaniment to new legislation restricting immigration. I take a quite different view from that of some hon. Members. I think it quite undesirable that these two things should be as closely associated as in the past, and that legislation to deal with people who are here should be confused with legislation to deal with those who are coming in. I can think, of nothing more calculated to arouse further suspicion and anxiety among those who have the right to be here and regard themselves as citizens of this country.
In supporting this legislation I do not want to suggest that the legislation which has gone before has been worthless—because it has done a certain amount of good. Discrimination in advertising has virtually disappeared. It has been very much reduced in public houses and it has diminished in some areas in housing. But the PEP report on the extent of racial discrimination, published last year, leaves no doubt that discrimination in employment continues at a high level and that a further effort is required in this connection. Against the general background of unemployment, the situation of the minority community is that much more difficult, particularly where we have severe teenage unemployment, which affects all school-leavers in every section of the community, but particularly West Indians.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Just for the record, does the hon. Member also agree that discrimination in promotion opportunities and in promotion itself is a very significant aspect of our industrial life?

Mr. Beith: Indeed I do. If I omitted to mention it, it was for the sake of brevity, but one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends made some interesting and constructive comments on that point a short while ago.
It suited this country well enough to import supplies of labour from countries overseas at one time, and we welcomed them then, sometimes perhaps not as kindly or as pleasantly as we should have,

paying them, sometimes, not very good wages, but willingly using the services they provided. We now have a responsibility to ensure for those whom we encouraged to come here the full rights and scope of British citizenship.
Turning to the Bill itself, we welcome a number of features: the extension of the definition of discrimination; direct access to the courts for the complainant; the wider powers proposed for the new body and its general strategic rôle; and the provisions to prevent discrimination in clubs, which we say are almost indistinguishable from places that do not enjoy the protection of club legislation—indistinguishable in function and in the wide range of people who use them. We also welcome the attempt to assimilate as far as possible race and sex discrimination.
However, we are disappointed that the Bill is not more positive in some respects. The Government's own White Paper on racial discrimination admitted that it was only half a strategy and that anti-discrimination laws in themselves are not enough. Action must be taken to combat the disadvantage experienced by many people in minority communities—real disadvantage, not merely discrimination. The new body needs the resources to combat this. One might have been tempted to press for a greater role for the new body in disbursing the urban aid programme, had it not become obvious that there was not going to be much left of that. It is a matter of serious concern that one of the few means by which special help could be channelled into dealing with areas of disadvantage is likely to be seriously reduced. We understand the concern of hon. Members at the Home Office about this and about the general public expenditure question, but we cannot let it pass without comment that if these funds are not available the combating of disadvantage will be severely hampered.
It would have been welcome if the Bill, or the Home Secretary himself, had given some indication that the Government are prepared to take other action within their powers, by the use of their contracting role, to ensure that there is no discrimination among the firms with which they deal, and by monitoring more carefully the composition of their own staff, the Civil Service. The Government


should set an example in this field, and local authorities should do more in this respect. We are glad that the new body will be responsible for local community relations councils and will therefore have some knowledge about what is going on in local situations. I recognise that there are some genuine apprehensions about this, but on balance it will bring benefit. In the past, community relations officers have far too often been left to carry out their difficult task on their own, with very little of the back-up help and advice that they need.
There is a danger that the new Commission will be seen by minority communities as even more a creature of the Establishment than its predecessors. Therefore, it is a pity that the Bill places no responsibility on the Secretary of State to consult the minority communities when appointing the members of the new body. There may be some practical difficulty in defining which bodies should be consulted, but it should be made much clearer that the Home Secretary will consult them when he makes these important appointments. This is another case in which the confidence of the minorities needs to be won, and the evidence of the Select Committee made it clear what a gap of confidence there is to be filled.
My greatest criticism of the Bill concerns the assistance that the new body will be empowered to give to an aggrieved complainant. Under present legislation the complainant can go to the Race Relations Board and have his complaint investigated; it does not cost him a penny, and the Board cannot refuse to help him. The Board has been concerned that it could not refuse frivolous complaints, such as in the "Scots porridge" case, and the first couple of weeks after the sex discrimination legislation became law brought more illustrations showing how the real purpose of legislation can be concealed by frivolous and foolish references. But the Bill goes too far in the opposite direction, because complainants can be assisted only in rather special cases. I very much hope that we can widen that definition before we enact the Bill; otherwise, nobody will be able to have his case investigated as of right.
Nor is there any presumption that a strong case would be assisted by the Board. Even under the present Act the number of complainants has been relatively few, and is clearly only the tip of the iceberg. The disadvantageous position of minority groups means that without some help by a body such as the new Commission they may be unwilling to undertake the difficult and potentially humiliating task of going to the courts. There is more reason to fear that this Act will be under-used than that the Sex Discrimination Act will be under-used by women.
Our final worry is the Government's general commitment within their own structure and organisation. The comments of the Select Committee on the ability of the Home Office to cope with its present responsibilities have been quoted and are well known. The Select Committee criticised the fact that the Home Office, on its own admission, had very little idea of what was going on in many areas. This gives food for thought. The Home Office's important and necessary responsibilities in respect of immigration and of the police give it an image, in the eyes of the minority communities, which is quite inappropriate to race relations functions. Immigration legislation itself has led many people to be suspicious not of the present Home Secretary and his colleagues but of their potential successors. The Government must look again at where the ministerial responsibility for this work should lie.
A time of national economic crisis is a testing time for the whole community. It puts severe pressures on minorities and their relationship with the majority community. It is very important at this time that the black citizen, particularly the young black citizen growing up, should have a feeling that this is his country—a country to which he can owe allegiance, for which he is prepared to fight, if necessary, and whose future he is prepared to build. If he does not have that confidence, it is not he alone who suffers but the whole community of the United Kingdom.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I do not know in what kind of world some hon. Members live, but I


have been concerned with various aspects of community relations ever since I was first elected to this House 31 years ago. I can, therefore, claim to have some little knowledge of how things are working out.
My first reaction to the Bill is that it will not make much difference. The people who are mainly affected by it will never read it. They may hear in some vague way that it has been passed. I would regard it as a confession of bankruptcy on my part if I ever had to refer a constituent's case either to the Race Relations Board or to the Community Relations Commission. I have never had occasion to do so, and I hope that I never have occasion to refer a case to the new Race Relations Commission. I deal with problems as they arise, at the grass roots.
In my constituency the Brixton Neighbourhood Community Association does very good work. If there is any problem, I consult it. We have a good community relations officer, working in close association with the local borough council, and I also consult him.
A few weeks ago, I asked a friend of mine, Monty Modlin, who is well known on radio and television, to walk around the streets of Brixton, he market and the discotheques, and talk to the mums and dads and the kids who might be playing truant from school, in language they could understand, so that they did not feel that they were being talked down to. The results were reasonably satisfactory. On one occasion he took with him the manager of the local employment exchange. He talked to some of the people in the streets and we managed to find jobs for one or two. That is the way in which to establish contact.
All this superstructure that we are trying to create reminds me of the research chemist who discovered a new wonder drug. His only problem then was to find some disease that it would cure. We are more or less moving in that direction with the Bill.
I have never been so inundated with printed and stencilled material as I have on this Bill. Reams and reams of stuff have poured in upon me. The Home Office has consulted dozens, perhaps hundreds of organisations. Everyone is an expert; everyone knows exactly what to

do; everyone is prolific with advice. We have had Select Committees wandering all over the face of the earth, dealing with race relations and immigration, going to Jamaica, Bangladesh and all over the place. In the end, they have told us only things that we knew already. I have never learned from all their reports anything I did not know already.
The only sensible remark that I have come across was in the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee—on Thursday 11th December 1975. Sitting in solemn conclave the Committee was examining Mr. Courtney Laws, a prominent local community relations worker in my constituency. He said:
Brixton is a very nice place in which to live. We have no fears about racial tension. We all live together. The mass media create fears and suspicion in the community. We are talking about working-class people who suffer the same ills and political problems.
Everybody goes to Brixton sooner or later. The Home Secretary came to Brixton last year. At the end of his tour he said that the main problems of Brixton were due to urban deprivation and that they were not peculiar to that area alone. Urban deprivation has nothing at all to do with race relations or with whether people are black or white. All suffer the same difficulties in that situation.
Only the other day, I went into a works in Brixton which employs mainly white labour but where the shop steward is a black man. This process of integration goes on all the time. We have had a black justice of the peace and black councillors on the local borough council. Our community includes taxi drivers and people who work in West End restaurants—people who tend to take a benign view of the weaknesses of their fellow mortals. That is what enables us to get on together without indulging in race riots.
We have seen them come and seen them go, black racialists and white racialists, and they have made no impact, because the solid mass of ordinary people face exactly the same kinds of problems. All we want is to be left alone and not to have so many people examining us, probing us and analysing us—psychologists, psychiatrists and people preparing Ph.D. theses. We have had enough of all that. We do not want to know. We want to be left alone.
All we want is a little more money from the Government for urban aid, so that we can establish places for young people who work during the day but cannot read or write, to learn to do so, and places where people can be looked after and eventually given reasonably good housing. The local council makes no distinction between black and white: merit, and merit alone, decides when it comes to housing. Some secretaries and officers of local housing associations are black men. We all mix together and get on well with one another.
That is why I hope that we shall not get bogged down by the theory that race relations constitute our main problem. We have general economic problems which are much more important. We hear a good deal about muggings and truancy. Only the other day the Assistant Commissioner (Crime) at Scotland Yard said that there were 8,000 robberies in London in 1975–22 a day. Some are committed by black boys and some by white, but to use statistics like that in an argument dealing with race relations is absolutely wrong.
The biggest mistake we ever made was to pass the Children and Young Persons Act in June 1969. Under a provision that we passed at 2.30 in the morning after only half an hour's debate no child under 14 can be dealt with by the police. Therefore, by the time a child is 14, he has a long history of offences. That also affects the problem of race relations and also gets mixed up with sex discrimination and all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with the subject.
I hope that we shall eventually be able to take a rational view of this matter, that people will be left alone to get on with it and to find their own way through the difficulties. In the end, people must learn to live with one another, and that is what they are on the way to doing now.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: I am pleased to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) and to join him in his tribute to Brixton for all that is being done there. I once fought an election in a neighbouring constituency, but I was not quite successful. I am glad of the chance to

speak, because I had some ministerial responsibility for this subject in government and I am a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration.
I recall two sayings, one by a white man and the other by a black man. On 23rd April 1968 my noble Friend Lord Hailsham, who was leading for the Opposition in this House on the last Race Relations Bill, said:
We should forget the colour of their skins and treat them as equals."—[Official Report, 23rd April 1968; Vol. 763, c. 71.]
Last November the Prime Minister of St. Kitts, in the Caribbean, remarked to the visiting Commonwealth Parliamentary Assocation delegation>:
We are all the same human creatures.
Those are fine statements of an ideal. Although I have some criticisms, I welcome the Bill, on the whole, as a step towards that ideal, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) made clear my party's total commitment to equal rights.
Looking at the Bill in its wider perspectime, I am critical of the Government on two main scores. First, in their laudable wish to safeguard racial minorities they seem to be ignoring some of the anxieties of the white majority. Last September's White Paper contained hardly a word about the importance of relaxed attitudes among the majority if coloured Britons are to be welcomed as integral members of our society and regarded not just with tolerance but with respect. In this context there are real worries over the trend of immigration, now rising again, and doubts about this Government's determination to maintain strict, effective control. Reassurance is badly needed, and I echo what my right hon. Friend said on this matter.
My second criticism is that within the total strategy for helping minorities, legislation appears to be occupying too prominent a position. In addition to legislation, stronger Government leadership and action in other directions are now overdue.
During the last Session the Select Committee criticised Governments for their too passive rôle—not only the present Government but its predecessor, and as a member of that Government I accept


my share of responsibility. In some fine phrases in the White Paper the Government seemed to acknowledge this, but precious little has happened since, apart from the Bill, and the Home Secretary said disappointingly little about it today. It is the same, as others have said, with the attack on urban deprivation. Economic and social disadvantage is an even greater problem than racial discrimination. Yet there are rumours today of cut-backs in the urban programme, and many hon. Members will have seen the eloquent plea by the Bishop of Liverpool in a recent letter to The Times.
If equality of opportunity is to mean anything, a really comprehensive programme by the Government, including more help for the inner cities to benefit whites and blacks alike, is essential. For this we have been waiting too long.
To return to the Bill: the House must answer two basic questions. First, can any laws in this field do more good than harm? My answer is "Yes", because I believe in the value of declaratory legislation, which has already been proved in this country. To influence public attitudes it is surely Parliament's task to set the tone and give a lead.
To those who argue that this is an invasion of freedom, I say that freedom to discriminate racially is not one of the ingredients of a free society for which I have fought and worked. Consider the position and feelings of a black school leaver born in Notting Hill, near my London home, who has a fifty-fifty chance of encountering racial discrimination when he seeks a job. For that young man, freedom is a mockery.
Secondly, is stronger legislation needed now? When we were in government I was not absolutely convinced, but as the evidence of continuing discrimination has accumulated from various sources, I must now answer "Yes".
Thank goodness race relations and attitudes are somewhat better today than 10 years ago. We must indeed pay tribute to the tolerance of the white majority, who have seen dramatic changes in the British scene during the last quarter of a century. We must pay tribute, also, to the adaptability of immigrants and their British-born children, and to the great contribution that they have made to our national life both at work and at play.
But we must not be complacent. The lessons of American experience, which the Select Committee was able to assess last year, are that if we want to forestall trouble later we should act firmly now to tackle discrimination, to save young blacks, in particular, from bitterness and alienation, and to give them, instead, a sense of confidence and security. The need for more action is most urgent in employment. Let us praise good employers who have made declarations of equal opportunity and carried them out, but there remain too many others, and perhaps even more trade unions, who are letting discrimination fester and who do not want to know.
Some of my hon. Friends, I know, are worried that the Bill will mean discrimination against whites. I believe it will not, because its aim is simply to help blacks up to the starting line on equal terms. There is encouraging evidence from recent surveys that most people, even among the white majority, are in favour of stronger laws against discrimination. Nevertheless, we have to take these worries seriously. We must learn again from American experience and avoid making our legislation too elaborate or oppressive. My judgment, therefore, is that we now need a stronger legislative thrust as part of our general attack on disadvantage and discrimination, but the House must take great trouble to get the Bill right, and the Committee stage of the Bill will be crucial.
I shall give a few examples of the matters that I hope will be thoroughly examined in Committee. There is the dubious provision about incitement to racial hatred. There is the precise extent of harmonisation that may be desirable between the sex legislation and the race legislation, and there is the advantage or otherwise of putting a positive duty on local authorities. There is the vital but difficult role of the new Commission. How are we to make certain that from the start it has a clear, effective strategy? I welcome the responsibility for education and research that the Bill puts upon it: there is a need for the education of the public in the wider realities of the multi-cultural society which Britain is now becoming, and there is a need, also, for more thorough research than hitherto.
What should be the status of local community relations councils? How should they be funded, and how should they be related to the Commission itself, to the local authorities and to the Government? How are we to ensure that they get the high quality of staff that will be essential?
Lastly, there is the problem of clubs. I do not believe that the present situation can be accepted. It is deplorable that one of the clubs that fought all the way to the House of Lords to keep its colour bar was a Conservative club—but no doubt some Labour clubs are just as bad Can it be right that a black man should work all day alongside his white friend on the shop floor but then find himself unable to join him for a pint at the social club across the road, just because his skin happens to be black?
Yet I wonder whether compulsion now, in this delicate area, may prove counterproductive. Might it not be wiser to give voluntary action a little longer, to lean on the good sense of club members, but to make it clear that if the Club and Institute Union is unable to eradicate all colour bars by persuasion within a year or two, legislative action by this House will be unavoidable?
Before concluding, I want to make an appeal and to address some words, more in sorrow than in anger, to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Once again today I heard not a constructive word from him. I wonder whether he realises the damage that he has done to race relations by his speeches in recent years, or the fears and unhappiness caused to his non-white fallow-citizens and their families in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, of which I have personal experience. When will he face reality—that whatever the future trend of immigration may be, we have a coloured population, here to stay, of about 1¾ million rising to 2 million, of whom the word "immigrant" is increasingly an inappropriate description, because the majority of them will soon be British-born? The whole House acknowledges the qualities of head and heart of "Uncle Enoch", as he is known among our lighter-hearted black friends. Will he not even now turn those qualities to the task of building a society in which race relations remain harmonious

and no citizens are second-class? Will he not at last speak up with all his eloquence for tolerance and equal rights?
Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman starts such a new chapter, there must be no mistaking the significance of today's debate. This House, I hope unanimously and I am sure overwhelmingly, is about to accept the principle of the Bill. To those listening at home and overseas our message is one of hope and harmony, not the doom and gloom from Down, South. Tonight the House of Commons will show itself virtually united in its commitment against racial discrimination, and dedicated to the proposition that all men and women in Britain shall have equal dignity and equal opportunities, whatever the colour of their skin.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), a Select Committee colleague, on his remarks and I invite him, if the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) forces a Division tonight, to join us in the Lobby in support of the Bill.
The Home Secretary said this afternoon that coloured people must not always be associated with problems. My right hon. Friend is right. It is because he is right and because he coined an important phrase that I shall, briefly, enumerate why coloured people must not always be associated with problems. They must also be associated with the constructive help that they offer our society. One does not have to be a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, as I am, to know about that. We do not need to make a special investigation to know that. It is apparent all around us.
All hon. Members will appreciate that our transport system and our hospital system would collapse if it were not for coloured people. Indeed, that applies to many of our social services. Many of the women who help the disabled and the aged and who man the home help service, particularly in our large cities such as London, are sterling women from Jamaica and other West Indian islands. I should like to see more of them devoting that constructive help to society. We see merely a pin prick at present. We have the occasional coloured magistrate


and coloured councillor. I look forward to the day when coloured people, be they men or women, take their place in this House, because they are able and capable of doing so. They may be Conservatives. I do not mind, for I am tolerant enough to realise that we have a two-party or a two-and-a-bit party system. If they are Conservatives they will be misguided, of course.
It is quite obvious that discrimination exists, and no one realises this better than the hon. Member for Cambridge and myself as members of the Select Committee. We have gone around the country and seen the problem. There is discrimination. A year or so ago we inquired into a report on employment. Discrimination was clearly visible. Possibly this is self-criticism, but there is no reason why we should not look inwardly at this problem. Unfortunately workers on the shop floor, no doubt trade unionists—and I am a trade unionist of long standing—told me that they did not want any blacks in their shop. I am not saying that that view is widespread but it exists on a fairly wide front. The Report on Political and Economic Planning—PEP as it is commonly known—inquired into racial disadvantage in employment. It conducted a survey of 300 large factories. The Report said that 50 per cent. of the factories visited practised some form of discrimination and only 8 per cent. had taken steps to ensure that discrimination did not occur.
There is also the promotion situation. How many people at or above the rank of sister in a hospital are black? How many Barbadians who work on the buses in Brixton—which is within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton)—are above the rank of the red or the blue labelled inspector? Most of them are drivers or conductors and there is just a sprinkling of inspectors. There is discrimination on promotion.
That same PEP Report said that black workers made twice as many applications as white workers before they could find a job and that when they found a job the great majority were given non-skilled manual work or were put permanently on the night shift.
I realise that legislation is not the cure and end-all of problems and the only

creator of good race relations or of the abolition of discrimination, but it helps. It is essential to have it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that coloured people must not always be associated with problems. We, the indigenous people, must be associated very much with the fact that we have created a society in which there are not enough houses for everyone, not enough jobs and not sufficient educational facilities. We have created that kind of situation, and we have failed in our responsibility to the coloured peoples.
Let those of us who dare to say "Why should we bother?" remember this, and let the right hon. Member for Down. South remember it. We went to the West Indies and recruited workers for our buses when we needed them. We recruited from Asia workers for the mills of Bradford.

Mr. Powell: Who is "we"?

Mr. Torney: The country; the employers. London Transport recruited bus-loads of workers. The National Health Service recruited nurses. Now it turns out that apparently we do not want to keep black nurses here after they are trained. However, when they return to Jamaica, there is no place for them there, either. That is a fact. I have been there. The right hon. Member for Down. South was at the Ministry of Health when we had great influxes of coloured immigrants between 1960 and 1963.
I am sorry that hon. Members, mainly of the Opposition, have mixed up the question of the immigration figures with discrimination, racial hatred and so on. I was sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) make such a plank of the figures on immigration, the numbers coming in, illegal immigrants, and the like. I have a great deal of respect for him and I know that what he said was said in absolutely good faith. I accept that. But he was so wrong.
In Bradford we have a vicious little group called the Campaign Against Immigration. They are racialist. They are near-Fascist. They put up candidates at elections, even General Elections. The one and only plank in their programme is "Send the blacks back. Discriminate as much as you can."
I do not suggest for a moment that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border meant his words to have this effect, but they will be welcomed by this vicious little organisation in Bradford and other vicious little fringe organisations in many parts of the country. They will be saying "There is an important Shadow Minister who is confirming what we have been telling you over the years: that the immigrants are just flowing into this country both illegally and legally." It just is not true. They make the wildest claims. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks will give them some credence. I am so sorry that some Opposition Members have made such a point about this matter.
I continue on the subject of racial hatred. I only wish that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was tightening the law more than he is, because although these people are small in numbers they can do irreparable damage. We must look at the people involved to get to the basis of this matter. From whence came those who are uttering the sort of cries that I have seen on posters on walls in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central, when I have been passing through Brixton, such as "Nigger, go home"? This is pure racial hatred, and it needs legislation to deal with it. I hope that this legislation will deal with the sort of people who propagate that vicious stuff.
When we look at them a little further we find that they are Fascists, or members of the National Front, or various other fronts, or of the Campaign to Stop Immigration. However, they are not far removed from the sort of people who were creating concentration camps in the last war and the sort of people who were conducting pogroms then, not against the blacks but against Jews. Perhaps it will be some other race or set of people that they will be attacking when they have worn out the attack on the blacks. These people are fringe elements. They are extremely noisy. They congregate in Bradford from a wide area. They come in coaches, cars and trains from a wide area. They have their marches and they certainly stir up racial hatred.
This brings me to what should be my final point because I know that many

hon. Members want to speak in the debate. There was recently a very offensive BBC programme, particularly offensive to Bradford, in the "Open Door" series, in which the Fascists were given a programme to expound their racial hatreds. The programme was expounding racial hatreds in Bradford. We have a very large Asian population there. In the main they are doing as good a job as the indigenous population, working in industry and service industries, and they are earning their coin, but they are being discriminated against and they often live in bad social conditions.
Finally, I know that legislation by itself will not cure the problems immediately or completely. I know that all of us must look inward at our own selves and our thinking. When I say "us" I do not mean only we in this great House of Commons. I mean that we, the British people, must look inward—the factory worker, the bus worker, the hospital worker. We must say "For that man, that woman, working next to me, whose skin is black, the only test and judgment should be whether he or she is contributing as much to society as he or she is getting out of it, and whether he or she is doing a good job in return for a fair day's pay". That is how we should judge those working alongside us. That is what we must work towards. When we have achieved that, we shall achieve absolute and complete racial harmony.
I hope that the Bill is passed tonight. If there is a Division, and if the right hon. Member for Down, South dares to demand that Division, I hope that, in order to show the contempt for him that he deserves, many right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition will come with us into the Lobby.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) believes that it is not right that immigrants are still pouring into this country, legally and illegally—to use his phrase—he is, I fear, alone in the country in thinking that, and, what is more interesting, almost alone in this debate in thinking so.
The House will readily concede that I have concerned myself with this subject for longer than any other hon. Member. There is much that one could say about


it, but today I have felt sometimes like Mr. Reginald Paget, now Lord Paget, whom I once heard saying that when people began to agree with him he started to lose interest in his own opinions. I fear that my own are in some danger of neglect by myself as a result of what I have been listening to today. Although I could say much about that I shall not do so because I need a little time to adjust to the sentence of orthodoxy which seems to have been passed upon me this afternoon.
After all, the Bill is really about race relations, and although there is a very close connection—no one would deny it—with the astonishing thing that has happened to us over the last 20 years, the creation in this country of a population of, plus or minus a little, 2 million coloured people, happening with a suddenness that no one could have believed 20 years ago, and of course this debate arises out of that, nevertheless we are really considering a legislative proposal that is before us and I think it right that we should give our attention to it.
The House will know that I have spoken on almost every occasion when a Bill of this sort has been put before the House by a private Member or by a Government. I have always opposed them. I never opposed them on grounds designed to be attractive or acceptable to my audience. I have not chosen my grounds with that objective in mind. Indeed, there is a great danger in doing so. It is easy to be swept along with the tide. The expedient that is used on one occasion is the trap that catches on the second occasion.
I have said from the beginning that it is wrong to use the law in this context. In a letter which I wrote to The Times a good many years ago—so far as I know it is the only creative effort of mine to have appeared in our school books—I wrote that while I tried to be fair, courteous and kind to all with whom I have dealings, I discriminate between everyone I meet upon every ground that I can detect. I think that everybody does so, and it is right that they do.
Discrimination is not merely the supreme human quality; it is the very principle of life itself, whether it be vegetable or animal. Discrimination is everything. The perception and evalua-

tion of difference is a basic function of every sentient creature. A heavy responsibility lies upon anyone who proposes to use a law of a country to declare that people must disregard certain things which they believe they perceive. The error which should be castigated, whether legal or not, is the attachment of unreasonable importance to an observed difference. However, the process of discrimination is always impeccable. It is always right and should never be discouraged, let alone forbidden.
I regard laws of this sort as laws against the very spirit of the human race. Of course, they grow. When I opposed the first Government Bill of this sort I said that it happened to be about race but that next time it would probably be about sex. At that time there was a Private Member's Bill before the House proposing similar machinery to act against discrimination on the ground of age. Since then I have seen many other similar proposals on the Order Paper.
Compulsion is so attractive and so quick. It saves all the bother of persuasion. It is the invariable objective of every pressure group that has a cause that is dear to its heart. We had the 1965 Act, the 1968 Act and, in 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act. We have a further turn of the screw with the Race Relations Bill 1976, and no doubt there will be others. Once we start on the process of using the law to mould minds—I have heard it described today as the declaratory use of the law and on other occasions as the educative use of the law—we are embarking upon something that is a total abuse of the coercive processes which a society accepts for some of its necessary purposes. That is the ground of my general objection.
I shall say only a few words about the Bill and why I think it is more objectionable than its predecessors. The Bill introduces a great deal of the procedure of the Sex Discrimination Act. It widens the range of discrimination. The bringing together of the Sex Discrimination Act and the widening of the definition of discrimination produces an oppressive system.
Let us consider the clauses which give the new combined body the power to start a general search. That may arise not because something has happened, or


because there has been a complaint, but because there is an area of suspicion. Under the Bill there is the power to serve requisitions on anyone. The result of the interrogation process will be nondiscrimination declarations. Unless they are appealed against they will become binding.
It is said that the person who is caught up in this Star Chamber procedure can appeal to a county court or an industrial tribunal and that the order may be quashed. By the way, the person concerned cannot appeal beyond those tribunals. Such declarations are rather like perpetual injunctions. It is remarkable that someone affected by what begins as an administrative interrogative procedure cannot appeal beyond an industrial tribunal or a county court.
Let us consider the general enforcement procedures. First, I know it is said "Come along, they are not criminal but civil procedures. This is all fairly mild." I have pointed out previously, and I shall try to do so again in about 60 seconds, the vicious severity of the civil procedure and why it has been chosen to operate in these Acts. Perhaps the American experience or teaching is responsible. Advocates brush aside the criminal procedure because it is necessary to prove the person guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the criminal burden. There is a jury, and the punishment is basically a fine. Judges are most reluctant to send someone to prison for this sort of offence. On the other hand, if the civil procedure is employed there is the attraction or the incitement of damages for the complainant to encourage him and reward him. Secondly, the whole matter is decided on a civil basis. It is not necessary to obtain proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It is necessary only to establish the balance of probability. Thirdly, a perpetual injunction can be obtained.
Fourthly, there are costs. Under existing legislation the complainant is always the Crown. Its resources are inexhaustible. It can always borrow from the Arabs if it runs out of money. Under the system that the Bill provides, the complainant shall be helped financially and otherwise by the Commission. There is nothing to be found in the Bill

that provides financial help, or any other form of help, for the accused person.
We know how difficult it is for a defendant in these matters to acquire legal aid. In an inquisitorial procedure involving a right of appeal to an industrial tribunal or a county court the person concerned knows that he will not be given legal aid to appear before an industrial tribunal; and in the county court he will not be given that aid in practice, and if he loses he will pay the costs of both sides. If he wins, the Commission will have to pay the costs, but since the Commission is the Crown it will not worry very much about that.
Therefore, a civil procedure is mainly oppressive. Under existing legislation a person against whom the Race Relations Board finds a prima facie case hardly ever dares to contest the matter in court. That has happened, but it is rare, and one can ignore it, because the individual would be crushed by the procedure, whereas the complainant—the Board or Commission—has behind it the inexhaustible resources of the Crown. It is a most oppressive procedure, and the Bill proposes to double it in terms of scope and oppressiveness. Therefore, I cannot give the Bill a fair wind, because there is much that is bad in it and the principle itself is wrong.
Let me now turn to Clause 69, which deals with incitement to racial hatred. In an anticipatory moment, because I knew that this legislation was coming along, I presented a Bill seeking to repeal the existing provision. But let us make no mistake about it, Clause 69 will be the greatest infringement of freedom of speech or writing since the days of religious persecution.
The Home Secretary said that the legislation was being tightened up because there were not enough convictions under the old system. I find that a lamentable reason for changing the law. The White Paper says, in paragraph 126:
Relatively few prosecutions have been brought under Section 6 of the 1965 Act.…However, during the past decade, possibly largely as a result of Section 6, there has been a decided change in the style of racialist propaganda. It tends to be less blatantly bigoted, to disclaim any intention of stirring up racial hatred, and to purport to make a contribution to public education and debate. Whilst this shift away from crudely racialist


propaganda and abuse is welcome, it is not an unmixed benefit.
Then appears a sentence to which I wish to draw attention>:
The more apparently rational and moderate is the message, the greater is its probable impact on public opinion.
The Home Secretary is virtually saying "The situation is becoming dangerous. People are putting forward views that are moderate and rational, they will have a great impact on people's minds, and therefore we must hit at them."
The way the Home Secretary hits at that so-called abuse is by Clause 69 of the Bill. He said that all Clause 69 was doing was to bring the law a little closer to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936. But that is not true. Under the 1965 Act one must prove three things against a person: first, that he intended to incite racial hatred; secondly, that he used, in writing or in speech, words threatening, abusive, or insulting; and thirdly, that what he said or wrote was likely to stir up racial hatred on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or natural origins. In effect, the first and third points are being omitted from Section 69 because a person will commit an offence if he publishes or uses in a public place matter that is threatening, abusive or insulting.

Mr. Rose: Mr. Rose Hear, hear.

Mr. Bell: Let me tell the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) why that provision is not enough. The words "threatening, abusive or insulting" are disjunctive. It does not involve all three, but any one of the three. Where people express opinions that are profoundly disagreeable to the person who hears them, the reaction is likely to be on the lines of the passage I read from the White Paper. The Home Secretary is saying that people cannot be allowed to express scandalous opinions in moderate language because it is too dangerous, and that if they are put moderately and rationally, they may persuade people that they are right.
I have discovered that in matters of controversy there is hardly a word one uses that cannot in one form or another be described as "obscene". One has only to express a view about which somebody feels strongly for it to be described as "obscene".

Mr. John Stokes: The Lords Spiritual use it.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend says that the word is used by the Lords Spiritual. It will be a little difficult for somebody who is accused to say that his words are not "threatening, abusive or insulting" if he is deploying an argument.
We know that in the last year certain geneticists have come close to saying that there is in certain races a certain mental inferiority which could be ineradicable. Never mind whether it is true or not, the situation is that they have reached that conclusion. Are they not to be at liberty to state that view? There will be many people who will describe the view as "obscene", but surely we should ensure that people who are expressing genuine opinions, opinions which may be deeply repugnant to certain categories of the population, are free to do so if they feel them to be true, authentic and rational arguments to deploy. That is what the Government are seeking to forbid. They are prepared, as laid down in the White Paper, to prohibit the expression of that sort of opinion in any way at all.
Paragraph 127 of the White Paper says:
The present law does not, however, penalise dissemination of ideas based on an assumption of racial superiority, of inferiority or facts.…The Government is not therefore at this stage putting forward proposals to extend criminal law to deal with the dissemination of racialist propaganda in the absence of a likelihood that group hatred will be stirred up by it. It recognises, however, that strong views are held on this important question and will carefully consider any further representations that may be made to it.
They are quite prepared to put in a new clause to say "You will not have those sorts of opinions."
The Bill proposes to eliminate the need for intent altogether. It strikes it right out in this restriction of freedom of speech. This really cannot be called a Committee point. It is central to the whole concept of the Bill [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that confirmation. The House should address itself to the Bill, realising what principles it contains and what is at stake. I know the attraction of the middle course in matters of this kind, but, in my view, when a Bill is put before Parliament the


duty of hon. Members is simple and clear, namely, to consider the proposal on its merits and to vote according to their conclusions. No other considerations should prevail.
I know that there is constant talk about the danger of being misunderstood. If politicians cannot explain their own reasons sufficiently clearly to avoid the risk of being misunderstood, they are not good politicians. If it is any encouragement to anyone, I point out that I have been explaining my reasons for doing these things for a good many years and I appear to be still alive.
I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), who, I am sorry to see, is no longer present, that although I understand how he feels about this matter and what he said about the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), one has to balance the matter, and he should bear in mind the fear and unhappiness caused to our own British people by the views which are opposite to those expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South. What would those people feel if the Bill were debated throughout the whole afternoon and evening in the House of Commons and no one said a word about their anxieties or about the engine which is being fashioned for their oppression, to mould their minds and to ensure that they act as though they held the same beliefs as the Home Secretary and his Friends?
I do not challenge the right of Labour Members to hold their views, but what right have they to pass laws to proscribe those of us who think differently, from speaking, acting and behaving in all our daily activities according to our own conclusions and synthesis of all the complicated and difficult movements that make up the modern society?
For those reasons I shall not be leaving it to the right hon. Member for Down, South to divide the House. I shall do it myself although I hope that he and other hon. Members will join me in the Lobby when the Division takes place at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I remind the House that there are 65 minutes available. There is a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members who still wish to speak. It is in hon. Members' own hands.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: We have heard the Opposition Front Bench as well as Opposition Members claim that the Government have relaxed discrimination controls. That is true in two respects. It is true in relation to those illegal immigrants who came in before 1st January 1973 and who have been granted amnesty from the operation of the Immigration Act 1971. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will make clear whether it agrees with the amnesty. As I understand the position, it affected only about 1,100 individuals.
The second respect in which controls have been relaxed is the way in which they affect fiancés, husbands or wives who have settled in this country. The immigrant population and English wives who have foreign husbands or fiancés are entitled to know whether the Opposition will reimpose such controls.
I represent a constituency which has a large immigration population. Last Saturday afternoon we witnessed the spectacle of violence and conflict arising out of immigration. For some reason known only to the demonstrators who were in support of candidates standing in the Coventry, North-West by-election, the conflict had to take place in my constituency of Coventry, South-East. That is an indication of how near to the surface troubles and difficulties can be.
In my constituency the only people who have so far criticised the Bill are club officials who see danger to club rights. I have been a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations since 1970. I have seen what I believe to be the ending of overt discrimination in this country. However, there is still substantial covert discrimination.
The Committee has been told of substantial criticisms of the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission. I never entirely accepted that criticism because those two bodies were set up by the House and when they were initiated they operated in almost uncharted seas. The basis of their remit of establishing harmonious relations is widely criticised today, but in 1968 it made sense because it was wide and it did not commit anyone to anything. It gave those bodies ample opportunity to


carry out the work which they were expected to do.
Times have moved. In Britain today it is clear that we have a multi-racial society and that it will remain so for a very long time to come. Those who believe that Indians, Pakistanis and West Indians should be sent back to their own countries, as it is put, including even those who were born here, fail to understand the situation. My experience in these matters is considerable. The only people of whom I ever hear who wish to go back are the retired pensioners who feel that at last they need the sun of the Punjab on their backs.
In the last six months by sheer good fortune I have visited several parts of the world. In the South Pacific and in the West Indies there are groups of Indians, Pakistanis and Asians of all sorts. I often think that after the British, those who came from the Indian subcontinent are the best colonisers in the world. They turn up almost everywhere. This is a fact which must be borne in mind. Even after perhaps 150 years and four or five generations, they have still retained their culture, just as the first generation which came away from their country.
We have a multi-racial society here which will last for a long time. In 150 years we shall still have fish and chips and chapatis; there will still be the saris and the turbans; there will still be the churches, the Moslem mosques and the Sikh temples. We must consider what sort of society we are to keep in this country. I am sure that everyone would say that we must have a fair society where men and women are equal citizens.
It is necessary to have legal backing to combat covert discrimination. With the Select Committee on Race Relations I went to the United States, which has far more experience and far greater problems in the sort of matters we are discussing tonight. Everywhere those who are trying to face up to their great problems said the same. They said, "It is necessary to have lawful backing to what is sought to be done in combating racial discrimination." The new Commission will be able to build upon the experience of the past.
I would not be surprised if, when the Bill becomes law, there were a flood of

applications from those complaining about discrimination. That is the sort of thing that was experienced when the legislation on redundancy payments was first passed. After a time, as the operation of the statute became known, these problems and difficulties became understood, the flood died away, and cases which might have been brought were settled without need to resort to the Act.
The only complaint I have received about the Bill is where it changes the law on clubs. I say humbly that I was not surprised by the decision of the House of Lords which gave rise to the Bill. It seemed to me that the law was always how the House of Lords ruled it should be. However, we should place on record in this debate the comment by the executive of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. It said in a statement issued to all affiliated clubs,
Conduct by a club committee which is based on colour, race or ethnic or national origins is unacceptable in that the Union is founded on friendship as is clearly shown in the Union Associate Card, namely, 'Honour all men, love the brotherhood, use hospitality one to another, be not forgetful to entertain strangers and he that need have friends must show himself friendly.
I welcome the Bill, but it would be foolish to deceive ourselves into thinking that we were reaching a solution to racial discrimination and the problems that go with it. To the immigrant his fundamental problems are the same as those of all others. They are, "What is my house like; what is my job like; what will the education of my children be?" These are the problems which we should solve because, set against those, the right to go into a club is pretty small beer.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: The debate illustrates, notwithstanding the probable result of the vote, the wide differences of opinion that are felt on both sides of the House. I shall try to start on a note that may achieve the maximum of agreement in this House. I believe that the greater part of this House will agree on two propositions. The first is that the position of any minority should always be considered carefully and honourably. The House would be almost united in its condemnation of racial prejudice—and I use those words to take into account the very clear distinction that is drawn


by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I define racial prejudice as being blind, unreasoning dislike of any race. I believe that Labour Members would condemn racial prejudice, because they believe in the equality of all men in all respects. I need hardly add that I do not share that belief, but I do believe that all men and women should be considered as individuals in each and every situation.
The importance of human life demands that each individual person should be considered not as a thing with a label on it, but as a unique human being. Is there not a danger in this fashionable agreement, for we are all too inclined to say that we are agreed upon this, we should take the law to it?
Such an attitude has very great dangers. There are surely many preconditions to successful legislation. I rely on only two of them. There must, first, be widespread consent to the proposed law. Secondly, there must be a certainty that the law will be both enforceable and enforced. If these two conditions are not adhered to, damage is done to the rule of law, for whenever a citizen breaks the law and either feels no moral constraint or gets away with it, it becomes progressively easier for the citizen to break the law.
The great example of this was the Prohibition legislation in the United States. That law was without consent and was unenforced and unenforceable. Prohibition created conditions that led to more law-breaking and crimes not associated with drinking. This may be a general proposition upon which the House is agreed. But the argument has been put forward, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), that this legislation is declaratory.
The argument runs that there will be some damage to the rule of law caused by this unenforceable legislation but that it will be compensated by improvements in race relations and in the incidence of what he would describe as racial discrimination. Let us look at the most important area of this so-called racial discrimination—to use a term of the legislation that I do not understand. The most important area to immigrants trying to get estab-

lished in this country is employment. Yet on page 2 of the White Paper we read:
Political and Economic Planning estimated that a coloured unskilled worker has a one in two chance of being discriminated against when applying for a job, a coloured skilled worker a one in five chance, and a coloured white-collar worker a one in three chance.
That is after a decade of this legislation. If this is true, it is an argument not for extending the law, but for scrapping it. It demonstrates that general damage has been done to the rule of law, but that there has been no compensating advantage here.
I have to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) when he says the law has a part to play in this area, but I do agree with him that race reations generally have improved. Why is this? First, it is because the people of this country have believed many of the things coming from this House and the many politicians who have said that there has been strict control of immigration. Unhappily, those protestations have not been borne out by events.
I regret the policy being pursued by the Minister of State at the Home Office and I particularly regret his visit to the Asian sub-continent, when he encouraged people to apply for entry into this country, the way he extended the category of dependants and the way in which he recently told immigration officers "When in doubt, let them in". That is not strict control of immigration.
The whole nation will be most grateful for the firm and statesmanlike way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border dealt with this matter. He has given a firm commitment that the Tory Party will reduce the number of immigrants coming into this country. I make so bold as to say that from his high position as Deputy Leader of the Party, he may even be able to allow us to have a debate on this subject.
It is one of the most extraordinary things in British politics that we are never allowed to debate this subject, which must be one of the most important in contemporary politics. We have 1¾ million immigrants here—a population about equal to the number of people directly employed in agriculture. Yet compare the amount of time this House spends in discussing agriculture with the time spent discussing race relations or immigration.
I hope that following the firm and statesmanlike way in which my right hon. Friend dealt with this matter in opening for the Opposition, and once we have the figures from Sir Claud Moser, we shall have a full debate on the subject.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border for saying that, in his view, the greater part of the so-called immigrant population was here to stay. I hope that this important assurance to the immigrant population will be harkened to by them. I hope it will give them a sense of security and self-confidence. One of the great difficulties in dealing with immigrant communities is getting through the barrier of excessive sensitivity and extraordinary touchiness that arises from their sense of insecurity. Perhaps my right hon. Friend's assurance will make them a little easier to deal with in future.
Another reason why I believe race relations have improved is that the ordinary people of this country—not the media or the gentlemen in Whitehall and Westminster—have displayed an extraordinary tolerance. Let us pay a tribute to the people of this country who have borne the burden of this immigration. There have been many tensions and difficulties which have been reduced by the kindliness, decency and good humour of the British man in the street—the same people that we Tories instinctively trust rather than compel.
There is a rôle for leadership in this sphere. I hope the House will consider the extremely sensible and commonsense appeal of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) who rightly poured scorn on the whole idea of legislation in this field and upon the well-educated do-gooders who poured into his constituency for ever offering ill-considered advice. The hon. Member said robustly that the people of his constituency wanted to get on without legislation and he considered that he and his colleagues gave leadership to his constituents in the many difficulties thrust upon them—mostly by Westminster. These are all important considerations, which have helped to improve race relations in this country.
I have considered most carefully the eloquent plea from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and the less eloquent, but more forcible,

pleas from my Friend's in the Whip's Office, that I should abstain from voting at the end of the debate. I regret that I am unable to accede to those pleas.
I go some way towards meeting my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. I do not, unhappily, have the stark honesty of character and intellect displayed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I would not have been in favour of repealing the 1968 Act. It is nonsense, but it is established nonsense and it may now be necessary nonsense. But there is a world of difference between enduring necessary nonsense and accepting new nonsense, such as this Bill.
I shall vote against the Bill for three main reasons. First, it stirs up the whole issue of racial prejudice once again. It will cause further resentment as it grants yet further rights to the immigrant minority. It will be one more affront, not to the middle class who are here but to the ordinary British people who have to bear the brunt of immigration and who have done so with decency and dignity.
Secondly, it was profoundly wrong and mistaken to extend this legislation to working men's clubs. The working men's club is the last refuge of 3½ million of our fellow citizens. It is their refuge—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: From life.

Mr. Budgen: We all need refuge from our families, our jobs, bad weather, and many other things. For many working people the working men's club is the last refuge where they can consort with friends of their own choosing. Here I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). It is disgraceful that those people should be faced with the compulsion of law. I had hoped that in the near future the doors of working men's clubs would have been opened voluntarily to immigrants. But the Minister of State and the Home Secretary have unhappily postponed that day. The same tough-mindedness, the same bloody-mindedness, that made this country fight on in the last war when all reasonable argument would have told them to surrender, will be displayed by—

Mr. Sedgemore: What is he talking about?

Mr. Budgen: It is perfectly true. The resentment of members of working men's clubs will be strong. The Government might have gained voluntary—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The time is too short for interruptions.

Mr. Budgen: The Government might have gained the voluntary co-operation of all the working men's clubs if they had approached the matter in a spirit of persuasion and not in a spirit of compulsion. Even if I do not take the whole of the Labour Party with me, I am glad that on this I take with me the hon. Member for Hartlepool.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it was profoundly wrong to tighten the offence of incitement to racial hatred. I do not want to expound at length upon that, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has done so admirably. I should perhaps declare an interest, because I recently made a speech in which I suggested ways in which immigration control could be tightened. For my trouble the Indian workers of Wolverhampton reported me to the Race Relations Board so that the Board might consider prosecuting me under Section 6 of the 1965 Act. My speech might have been unreasonable or unfair, but I contend that if that were so I should have lost votes thereby. Section 6 of the 1965 Act is being used as a threat to stifle discussion of an important problem.
Before the House forgets the unhappy incident in which paper was thrown down, we might reflect on why that happened. It happened because a large number of our fellow-citizens feel that they cannot discuss this issue. If they feel that they cannot discuss it, their only resort is to violence—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must by convention not refer to incidents that do not concern the Chamber. I also remind him that the clock is moving on.

Mr. Budgen: Those are the three reasons why, with great regret, I cannot follow the injunction put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. I vote in the way I do not because I am in favour of racial prejudice but because I believe in the rule

of law. I do so with a sense of regret that I shall not be voting with the remainder of my party. Most of all, I vote because I believe that this legislation will be bad for all my constituents, of whatever colour or class. I vote also because I believe that the legislation is interfering, patronising and paternalistic.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is so blinded by his obsession with immigration that he fails to understand the background to the Bill and the reasons for it. It is speeches like his which cause the sense of insecurity to which he referred. He gave himself away when he talked about our bearing the brunt of immigration as if we bear the brunt of immigration when our children are looked after by nurses from the Caribbean. I do not regard that as a brunt. I regard it as a benefit. This country from time immemorial has benefited from immigration from many sources.
Having served on the Committee stages of two Bills dealing with race relations, I am delighted that even after a decade the Government have accepted several crucial criticisms made by some of my hon. Friends and myself about the shortcomings of the legislation on those two previous occasions. One of the major shortcomings which we then pointed out and which applies equally to the legislation in respect of the Ombudsman is reliance upon individual complaints. At best it is a haphazard method, but it also ignores the reluctance to complain and the unawareness on the part of many people of discrimination and the remedies which are available to the victim.
I am in favour of the fusion of the Board and the Commission, and I welcome it in the context of the advisory body that is to be set up by my right hon. Friend. Most vital of all is the new power for the new Commission to initiate investigations and complaints. I should like a duty placed on the Commission to make application to the court in cases of persistent discrimination. So that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) can have the benefit of this legislation in his constituency, I should like Clause 78(2) to be removed from the Bill, so that the Bill would apply


to what is termed an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Clause 9, which provides that an employer may discriminate against any person employed on a ship who was engaged or applied for that employment outside Great Britain, is a particularly distasteful provision. It will enable British shipping companies to continue to employ Chinese and other Asians on British ships on terms and conditions that are greatly inferior to those offered to British seamen. That clause is anathema to the National Union of Seamen, and i should like it to be removed from the Bill. If it is not removed, at least let us have a time limit for doing away with this form of discrimination.
In a Second Reading debate it is possible only to select one or two specific points in this very comprehensive Bill, which I warmly welcome. I hope that the Minister will take note, before the Committee stage, of what I have to say on Part IX of the Bill, which deals with incitement.
I remember warning the then Home Secretary in 1965 that the provisions concerning incitement would be largely ineffectual. The reason is apparent to anyone with any knowledge of the courts and the reality of the quite obscene—I do not hesitate to use the word—literature that emanates from racialist organisations. Anyone interested in seeing it can look at my file.
There has been no change whatsoever in the tone of much of the racialist literature distributed today compared with that which was published in Germany in 1933. The only difference is that it is now a good deal more subtle and insidious. On only three occasions that I recall has the Attorney-General been able to take successful action on the ground of incitement. Clearly, as the Attorney-General pointed out on 9th October 1963, an unsuccessful prosecution can do more harm than no prosecution at all.
But surely the racial, national and ethnic groups have a right not to be defamed. Just as individuals have a right not to be defamed or lose their reputations, so even more is there a fundamental right not to be defamed because of the way one is born—and cannot help being born.
I should like to see a provision concerning religion added to the Bill. it is so easy—as the National Front and the British Movement do—to concentrate on Sikhs, Hindus, Jews or Muslims. Equally, today it might be Protestants or Catholics who are involved. Surely incitement to hatred on the ground of religion, as happens in the area now represented by the right hon. Member for Down, South—or perhaps the Deep South—is as bad as incitement where race is involved.
The law has until now maintained a double onus of proof upon the prosecution. First, there has to be an intention to stir up hatred. Secondly, there has to be a likelihood that it will ensue. Any practioner in the criminal courts will know that juries are very reluctant indeed—and quite rightly so—to accept the first of these propositions without the clearest possible external evidence. But here, by the very definition of the kind of offence, it is almost impossible to prove such an intent, except in the most blatant of public utterances, and where it is made in circumstances in which a breach of the peace is likely to follow. Even now the law remains deficient, because hatred is not the only emotion stirred up against minorities by organisations such as those to which I have referred.
People in my own city only recently committed acts of hideous violence against people of their own race at a public meeting, and they have so far remained unpunished because, unfortunately perhaps, they have friends in high places. But any publication which is written or spoken, or any pictorial representation, likely to incite hatred ought to be covered by the law, and not only hatred, contempt and ridicule.
One of the unfortunate consequences of the actions of those who, because of some deep sense of inferiority, have to project their feelings on to some identifiable minority, is that they tend not merely to hate but also to incite contempt for or ridicule upon a particular racial or religious minority. I believe that it is no different from the law concerning sedition. If we permit this it affects the very fabric of a democratic society and its cohesion.
It is no wonder also that under the old law after 1965 the Attorney-General


at that time—for whom the enforcement of this Act is only one of many functions, and not central to his work—did not act with any sense of urgency. At that time it took eight months in the Great Yarmouth case. Now, in spite of the very best intentions, the present Attorney-General has accepted what some of us said 10 years ago in the debates we then had in Committee—that the law should be enforced as the criminal law is enforced anywhere. The Attorney-General should not be overburdened with each individual case.
There are very good liberal grounds, which I understand, for saying that this infringes free speech. I have always taken the view that where there is a balance between freedom of speech and what appears to be a curb upon it, we ought to come down on the side of freedom of speech. But we do not permit freedom of expression when it endangers national security, when it is seditious, obscene, blasphemous or defamatory. The end product of racial hatred is not merely the hatred itself. It is the gas chamber and the racial war.
It is especially significant—hon. Gentlemen should take note of this—that the countries with direct experience of those consequences, such as Austria and Germany—and occupied countries such as Norway—have the toughest possible laws against racial incitement. They know the end product of racial incitement.
I should like to see imported into the Bill the concept of contempt, which is a prime feature of much of the more disgusting propaganda of such racialist groups as the National Front. I am not satisfied that the wording as it stands in relation to the circumstances is sufficient. I believe that mere publication itself should be made an offence and I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at this before the Committee stage, as I am afraid his predecessor did not, 10 years ago, or indeed seven years ago, when appeals were made to him to rectify this.
To take just one example, in Norway the provision was:
Similar punishment will be administered to a person or persons who publicly insult or provoke hatred or contempt of a race on

account of its creed, extraction or origin, 0r who threaten such a race or spread false accusations about it".
That is the situation in Norway, which can be regarded as one of the most democratic countries in the world and which recognises that there is a fundamental right to be free from calumny or racial incitement, which is even more important in that case than the so-called freedom of expression, which one has to weigh in the balance.
It is a source of great satisfaction to see in the Bill many changes which the International Labour Office, the United Nations, the Council of Europe and other international bodies have recommended, and particularly in respect of the United Nations Resolution of 20th November 1963 which exhorted Governments
to do all in their power to promote energetic action, which by combining legal and other practical measures, will abolish all forms of racial discrimination.
I had myself the experience in the Council of Europe of drafting a 30-page report on discrimination. The delegates from 16 countries ended by unanimously asking their national governments
to re-examine their legislation and practices with a view to tightening up and improving their system for the suppression of discriminatory practices
—and perhaps the right hon. Member for Down, South will note this—
particularly in the field of civil rights, employment and housing.
The Sex Discrimination Act, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Equal Pay Act have all contributed to this under this Government, and under a reforming Home Secretary we have seen advances on a wide front. They have to be made before the kind of tension no longer arises that I have seen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton)—and I am sorry he is not here—where virtually riots have taken place, involving hundreds of people.
One sees a vicious circle of deprivation occurring particularly in respect of young persons of West Indian origin, denied a job because of their pigmentation, who do not have the same kind of sense of indentity as that possessed by those with thousands of years of history. We stripped them of their identity and


treated them like cattle by sending them to the Caribbean and then we reject them when they come to this country. It is therefore no surprise that, when they hear the speeches of the right hon. Member for Down, South, with his lack of sensitivity, they are a little oversensitive. They believe, and have a right to believe, that their allegiance is here, and their rejection is psychologically a bitter blow that can result in lasting problems.
Unlike previous generations of immigrants they are in a position that they remain physically marked out for attack by anyone who wants to make a scapegoat of them. Had the great grandfather of the right hon. Gentleman had a different pigmentation, obviously we would know his origins—and that is the difficulty in respect of colour. Those who wish to incite hatred or to discriminate against a person may well do so, even though that person was born in this country and even though his great-grandfather was born here. There needs to be positive action provided under the Bill to solve the problems faced particularly by black teenagers, many of them born in this country, who meet disadvantages not only in obtaining jobs but also in obtaining promotion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the winding-up speeches start at nine o'clock and that there are still six hon. Gentlemen who would like to address the House. The hon. Member has taken 15 minutes.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman has in fact taken only 15 minutes during the whole of this Session. This is the first time that he has spoken this Session, and he served on both those Committees. I am drawing to a close. I think that the opening speech lasted an hour.
The PEP Report showed even greater discrimination occurring before the 1965 and 1968 Acts were passed.
We are not asking for privileged treatment for anyone. We are asking for equal treatment. Without it, I believe that we create social discord, wastage of talent, violence, crime, decay in our inner city areas and social tensions in our conurbations.
I believe that it is our duty to act not only in legislation but by giving financial

help to inner city areas through education; above all, to strengthen the law relating to incitement; to apply it in the ordinary criminal courts; and to ensure that discrimination is dealt with by tribunals with the power and inclination to award far higher damages than hitherto. I believe that they should also be composed partly of other members of minority groups. They will and should have the power to require witnesses to attend, to produce documents, to initiate investigations, and to grant injunctions pending a complaint being heard.
Finally, we must recognise that discrimination is not only hurtful in a pecuniary way to a person who fails to get a job but is a psychological trauma which many people fail to understand. It causes suffering and pain and produces an adverse reaction in the victim. I believe that, with the combination of this Bill and other measures which I have suggested, we shall be able to tackle what we set out to tackle in 1965. We made a further stride in 1967 and we are making a welcome big stride today.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I begin by declaring an interest. I am an Englishman and a member of the Royal Society of St. George.
This Bill, as has been pointed out often enough, is closely mixed up with the whole question of immigration, which we rarely debate in this Chamber. Although we appear to be entering the age of referenda, the British public has so far not been asked to give its view on immigration.
I believe that most hon. Members know in their hearts the views of ordinary English people. They wish to keep this country, which they know and love, basically as a place to which they feel they belong. Fundamentally, they do not wish it to change either its character or its cohesion. In other words, they wish to retain their identity—their homeland. The word "home" has a familiar sound. It is something that one knows, loves, and returns to.
I believe that the aim of the English in this island is a natural, not ignoble, one. They remember their history with pride, but now, for the first time in this island's long history, they fear for their


future. In the past we have always absorbed small numbers of immigrants, but the immensity of the coloured immigration that this country has received during the past 25 years is an entirely new phenomenon.
Immigration has completely altered the face of certain parts of this country. It has, as we know, created foreign enclaves in our midst. It has brought into this country alien people who live alongside us, whose religion, customs and habits are quite different from ours. In this way it has fundamentally altered the character of this country.
I believe that no Government have the right to carry out such a fundamental act without the most specific consent of the people. Successive Governments are gradually depriving English people of their birthright, and in time, if this procedure is not stopped, the local population will be swamped. Hon. Members on the Government Benches may laugh, but there are not many people in this country who would actually enjoy that.
Some years ago I met a constituent who found himself and his family the last English persons in a road otherwise totally occupied by immigrants. He said to me "What have I done to deserve it?" Although the reaction of hon. Members opposite is to laugh, my reaction was one almost of tears, because I thought that I and all of us in this House, who were sent here by our constituents, had let them down. Hon Members may laugh at that if they wish. I am not making a party point. I believe that all Governments have failed to protect the indigenous people of this country. Not only do our Governments lack the moral courage to put into force the natural controls on immigration that exist in almost all other parts of the world; for many years there has been a sort of brain-washing of anybody who has tried to control immigration as if he were an un-Christian and horrible beast instead of somebody expressing a perfectly normal and natural point of view which is supported by 90 per cent. of the population.
I make no apology for the fact that this problem mainly concerns England and the big English cities. There are certain areas there where an Englishman may feel that he is a stranger in his own

land. Nobody has told him why, or how, this happened, or what is the point, what is the aim, what sort of England this will be in 10, 20 or 30 years' time.
The burden of receiving these large numbers of immigrants does not effect the editors of newspapers, the media, or hon. Members on the Government Benches. It affects the poor old English working class; they have to bear it. And we are supposed to represent them.
In recent years there has been a second form of brain-washing, by saying "Do not worry. Immigration is being brought to an end. There is going to a mere trickle." We have been expecting this "coming to an end", this "mere trickle", since the middle of the 1960s, but it has not happened. For some reason the numbers stay put, or go higher. Either it is the Asians—who, instead of going back from East Africa to India, for some reason come here—or it is dependants, and dependants, and dependants.
I notice that the laughter on the Government Benches is now less. We all know that this is a real problem, which should be dealt with, and it is not being dealt with by the present Government. I absolve from the charge of deceiving us the Minister of State, who represents one of the fairest of our English cities—York. He has never made any secret of the fact that he is on the side of the immigrant and would, I believe, like as many as possible to come here. What he has never told us is what he wants York to become, or England to become, later in his lifetime or in his children's lifetime. That is a question that he might answer tonight.

Mr. Sedgemore: Green fields.

Mr. Stokes: What is wrong with green fields?
The Government's immigration figures are not believed. There have been too many mistakes. In any event, world travel is now so extensive that much greater will and effort by the Government would be required if illegal entry and illegal residence were to be curbed. Meanwhile, we all know the scandal of the dependants. They will be coming in, it seems, for a century. Labour Members had better realise that it will never stop unless they decide to press their Government to do something about it.
It is against that sombre background that we should judge the Bill. Governments have not kept faith with our people in controlling the flow of immigrants, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said. Now, they add insult to injury by placing new burdens on the British people. Can Governments for ever presume on the tolerance of the English working class—that amazing kindness, goodness, friendliness and gentleness on which we have all often remarked? If millions of people had suddenly gone into Germany or other countries, they would not have been received as we have received them. Immigrants to other countries stay for a fixed time; they do not settle there.
Unless definite and drastic steps are taken to cut immigration dramatically, in time there will be an inevitable explosion of popular feeling. Already, we have between 1,750,000 and 2,500,000 immigrants. Anyone who predicted figures of that size 20, or even 10, years ago would have been thought a dangerous lunatic. But it has happened. We now know that with the number of immigrant births and—no one has mentioned this—the rapidly falling English birth rate, the population proportions are changing even more quickly.
Under the Bill, our people will be unfairly discriminated against and will face new offences. It is the newcomer, the immigrant, who will have the privileges and will be able to claim a right to them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and others have said that liberty and free speech are directly affected. The wording of the Bill is wholly un-English, full of what Orwell called Newspeak or double-talk, and in parts reminds me of "Nineteen-Eighty-Four".
Did those who drafted or approved the Bill ever go into an English pub and ask the ordinary man or woman for an opinion? Of course not. The Government are constantly worried about what the Observer or The Guardian and the rest of the media think. They represent no one but themselves. The English man or woman in the street has never been asked, yet they, in the end, are the people who vote Governments in or out. At the moment, the ordinary Englishman does not think much of Parliament. He

believes that we are a little out of touch. If he reads reports of this debate, which I very much doubt, he will think that we are even more out of touch.
We are told that there are now so many immigrants that their votes in elections are crucial. We hear the new word "realpolitik". We are told that since there are 2½ million immigrant voters, we must take care and watch our step, that we must above all get their votes. But there are still about 20 million English voters with their hopes, fears and feelings.
The Bill can be opposed on many grounds. There is also the large question of how much and how far we are prepared to tolerate the Government deciding everything for us in the most intimate details of our private lives. No wonder the Minister laughs, because the Home Office is doing it every day. I am thinking of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act, the Employment Protection Act and the family planning legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentle man will have heard my appeal for brief speeches. The winding-up speeches start at 9 o'clock.

Mr. Stokes: We have Acts about crash helmets, and the new Bill on car seat belts. This Bill follows the Sex Discrimination Act, which I consider to be absurd and unnecessary. Why must we legislate for everything? With the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton), who made the best speech from the Government side of the House, I believe that people's good sense is often better than Government meddling.
Everybody says that we have lost our spirit and we are not the nation that we were 30 years ago. One has only to sit on the Tube every morning and look at people's faces to realise that we are a defeated nation. We must ask what the Bill will do to bring back the wonderful spirit that we had during the war. Will this Bill help, or will it hinder? I believe that it will cause resentment among English people and that it is not really wanted by immigrants. It is another futile, dangerous and irrelevant burden on this long-suffering, once-great nation. Can one imagine any one of our great leaders of the past bringing forward such a Bill? Of course not.
I hope that there will be some in my party—the national party of this country and the only party capable of defending ordinary people's freedom—who will join me in the Lobby against the Bill.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: In the two and a half minutes that remain to me it is impossible to answer the speech to which we have just listened and to do justice to it. We have heard the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) who said he was speaking as a true Englishman. I agree with him that we have a tradition of toleration, friendliness and acceptance of visitors, but there is another aspect of our society to which we have not referred in the debate. There has been an underlying implication in many speeches from the Opposition Benches that the problems that we are facing are the problems of the black people and the brown people. We have not looked at the problems of the white people.
The House needs to be reminded of two problems of our society into which the black and the brown people have moved. Whether we like it or not, all of us are, to some degree, tainted by the fact that not many years ago we were an Imperial power and regarded ourselves as superior in our abilities to rule and guide affairs. That tradition perhaps makes it more difficult for the older amongst us to accept immigrants into the country as equals. It is made even more difficult by the fact that of all the nine countries in the EEC, ours is the most class-ridden. In most cases immigrants come into Britian to take up unskilled or semi-skilled jobs and therefore they move into the bottom strata of society.
I am sorry that those factors have been left out because they point strongly to the need for the legislation. The problems are just as much the problems of white people as they are of black people and brown people. It is therefore vital that the legislation be brought on to the statute book to redress the balance that has existed against black people and brown people, who are treated as second-class citizens and therefore inevitably discriminated against.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: One of the general themes that have run through today's debate has been the central question of principle—that is, whether so intangible and generalised a concept as "community relations" or "race relations" can be improved or possibly damaged by specific, narrowly-drawn and detailed statutes of the sort that we have considered today. My conviction is that, on balance, the law has a positive and helpful rôle to play.
The implicit assertion of the principle of equal rights, which this sort of Bill contains, is in itself valuable, and perhaps Section 6 of the 1968 Act, which made it unlawful to publish explicitly colour-discriminatory advertisements, is an example of a specific provision that is both desirable and helpful on race relations grounds and is an example of a law that is enforceable and enforced—a criterion that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) requires of legislation.
At the same time, the balance of advantage over disadvantage in this kind of legislation is much less clear-cut and self-evident than some hon. Members have asserted today. Here I do not refer to the narrow case of clubs, which is dealt with in Clause 25. I am sure that in that respect the Bill has things wrong and that more harm than good will be done. We shall certainly try to change the clause in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) gave a good example of the way in which the provision could be usefully refined. That we shall attempt to do. Rather, I refer to the provisions of the Bill that are in principle impeccable—that there should be no discrimination on grounds of race or colour in matters of employment, training, education, housing or the provision of goods and services.
My point is a simple one. If we continue to trumpet through our laws and statutes that there should not and must not be discrimination in these areas, about which most of us would agree—certainly I applaud the assertion unreservedly, and most of my right hon. and hon. Friends would also—and yet discrimination still persists and even increases, that trumpeting begins to give


an uncertain note. Laws can be brought into disrepute. The potential value of race relations legislation is possibly undermined and unrealised by this sort of contrast between theory and practice. The whole elaborate framework of laws and institutions in this country can even be in danger of turning sour.
There is some evidence—that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson)—that in the eyes of minority immigrant groups the golden prospect originally opened up by the establishment of the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission has already turned to lead, and it is by no means certain that the alchemy of Clause 43, which sets up the new Race Relations Commission in place of the old Commission, will turn this lead back into gold.
Helpfully enough, the reason why well-meaning, declaratory, and even thoroughly desirable legislation in this area can turn sour is explicitly faced and expounded in the Government's White Paper on Racial Discrimination, Cmnd. 6234, which was published as recently as last September. The reason is that in real life the lot of the poor coloured immigrant is beset by two quite separate hazards. One is unfair discrimination, based upon prejudice. Against that we can make, have made and should make laws. However, the other hazard, which is much more intractable and, in my submission, much more persuasive, is inescapable discrimination based upon disadvantage.
I am very glad that the Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, referred to this in terms. My only regret is that he did not make it the major feature of his speech—in contrast to the authoritative speech of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), with his special experience in this matter as Chairman of the Select Committee, who majored on it in his speech. We should note that when we talk about racial disadvantage, we are talking about discrimination. It is easy to slip into a way of thinking that when we talk about discrimination we automatically mean only racial discrimination. Racial discrimination we know and can legislate against. However, much discrimination is based upon disadvantage.
Not only is discrimination based upon disadvantage allowed; it is, indeed, positively entrenched in the Bill. The paragraph at the top of page 2 entrenches discrimination based upon disadvantage. It says, in effect, that it is a legitimate basis for discrimination that one should require a certain educational standard in applying for a job that requires technical, mathematical, numerate or literate ability, so we entrench the right to discriminate on various grounds where qualifications are essential. This means that discrimination based upon disadvantage is recognised, established and entrenched in this very Bill.
Let me spell out this theme of disadvantage in a short digression. The White Paper touches upon it quite extensively. First, there is language. Political and Economic Planning tells us, in round figures, that one-half of adult Asians—the largest immigrant group—speak English only slightly, or not at all. West Indians are better linguistically, but not much. PEP says,
If West Indian children tend to find that the educational system passes them by, one of the main reasons is that they tend to have poor command of the kind of English that is used in school, as opposed to the West Indian dialect that they speak at home"—
the Creole.
Then there is housing. I quote from paragraph 8 of the White Paper:
The latest figures suggest that the housing conditions of the coloured population have hardly improved in the last 10 or 15 years. The proportion of them who live in overcrowded conditions or who are forced to share the basic amenities is higher than that for the population at large. Coloured people are grossly over-represented in the private furnished rented sector, where conditions are worst and insecurity greatest, and significantly under-represented in the council housing sector.
I need not elaborate upon the effect that bad housing has on personal motivation, capability, performance, health, and so on. It is self-evident. But it also spells disadvantage.
Then there is education. I have already mentioned the phenomenon of education "passing by" poor immigrant children with linguistic difficulties, but there is an additional factor in education, related to home life, and affecting West Indians particularly. A very high proportion of West Indian women are working—no fewer than 74 per cent., which


is nearly double the average for the population at large. Not all are mothers, but the broad result is that West Indian children are peculiarly vulnerable to the risk of being left in large, inactive, unsupported groups without proper care and stimulus. Again, I need not stress the subsequent educational handicap that this entails. Nor need I stress the resource constraints likely now to be placed upon playgroups, organised child-minding, nursery education and other such provisions by which this handicap may be mitigated, as a result of likely trends in public expenditure.
It is worth adding, under the heading of education, that a large number of Asians arrive here comparatively mature in years, many of them having left school at the age of 12 and many having had no formal education whatsoever.
There is another factor in the disadvantage theme—namely, the cumulative effect. Paragraph 11 of the White Paper reads:
If, for example, job opportunities, educational facilities, housing and environmental conditions are all poor, the next generation will grow up less well-equipped to deal with the difficulties facing them. The wheel then comes full circle, as the second generation find themselves trapped in poor jobs and poor housing.
It was that vicious process which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) analysed and described as the cycle of deprivation.
Nothing is more important in a debate about race relations and racial discrimination than to be clear-headed about the two different discriminations that I have described. There is unfair discrimination based upon prejudice and inescapable discrimination based upon disadvantage. There is unquestionably all the difference in the world between saying to a chap "I refuse to employ you because you are coloured", and saying to him "I should genuinely like to help you by giving you a job, but as you can neither add nor subtract, nor read nor understand simple English, with the best will in the world I must take on an educated white person." Both situations give rise to discrimination. One form of discrimination is based on prejudice, and the other on disadvantage. Both are profoundly regrettable.
To complicate matters, these discriminations interact upon each other and form an amalgam, but both can be tackled by Government action. The one overriding danger and hazard that Governments must avoid at all costs is to seek to apply laws appropriate to tackling discrimination based on prejudice as an assumed remedy to a situation in which the essential character is disadvantage. If that is done, the scale or extent of the discrimination is unchanged, and in the process the law is brought into total disrepute. My criticism of the Government is that they have fallen into that trap. It has emerged with overwhelming clarity that since the passing of the 1968 Act the extent of discrimination has scarcely abated. The predominant cause is disadvantage, with prejudice a derived and subordinate factor.
It was of great interest to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he agreed that, on the whole, the British public were pretty good and not much given to racial prejudice. The right hon. Gentleman immediately replied that he agreed that only a tiny proportion of the population is racially prejudiced. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) echoed the same sentiment a little later.
If there is little racial prejudice inherent in the British people, it demonstrates my thesis that unabated discrimination—indeed, it has increased since the passing of the 1968 Act—is based not on racial prejudice but on disadvantage, an entirely different and much more complicated factor.
The real worry is that the Government's reaction, after eight years in which discrimination has hardly abated, is to bring forward a Bill that is essentially the 1968 Act refurbished and slightly polished. There has been some elaboration, some consolidation, and one or two vivid but small embellishments. I take the point of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that the embellishments that stand out most notably, such as those concerning clubs, are rather small beer.
The 1968 Act was a disappointment, or we should not now be facing new legislation. A period of eight years has elapsed since that measure was passed,


yet the racial minority groups today are still undertaking the poorer jobs, earning much less, occupying much poorer houses, and suffering far more in relative terms from unemployment than is the rest of the population. Clearly, the 1968 Act was a failure in fundamental respects, whatever good it may have done in other directions. I admit that the prohibition on discriminatory advertising was all to the good, but in terms of the prevalence of discrimination based on disadvantage, that Act has had a profoundly disappointing effect.
I wish to analyse the main changes in the Bill—1968 Act Mark II, as it were—to see whether they are sufficient to make any real difference. I take first the strengthened definition of "discrimination" in Clause 1. It has been extended beyond the parallel provision in the 1968 Act to cover so-called "indirect" or "unintentional" discrimination, and to cover,
unjustifiable conditions or requirements which are discriminatory in effect".
The measure matches up to the parallel provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
The White Paper cites, as an example of the practice that the refurbished Clause 1 would prohibit, the banning of turbans or saris, if not justifiable on safety grounds. But the extent to which this provision will secure a few jobs for Sikhs and Pakistanis compared to the vastly greater number who will continue to be disbarred by difficulties of language, education, experience, or training is infinitesimal.
Clause 1 writes in in terms, that discrimination due to disadvantage is acceptable. Unexceptionable though the clause may be as refurbished, it will make not a ha'porth of difference to the disproportionate burden of unemployment and low-grade work borne by immigrants. The clause should have made provision for special language centres at primary, junior and secondary schools, greater provision for adult language classes at work and at Government training centres, and the elaboration of urban programmes and so forth.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) made an impressive speech, which was derived from his experience on the shop floor of a textile firm. He described the kind of measure that could

get to grips with discrimination at work. That would mean a deliberate step by employers and unions to provide in-service training, elementary English tuition, and so on. The hon. Gentleman appealed for further resources. He will certainly get nothng of the sort from this Bill. Clause 1 will help him not one iota in that respect.
Let me turn to Clauses 37 and 38—another innovation since the 1968 Act—under which the so-called "racial balance" provisions in employment will be repealed and provision will be made for allowing employers to provide special training facilities for minorities. The Home Office, in a Press notice, made brief reference to this innovation in the following terms:
The Bill will also permit employers and certain vocational training bodies to provide training confined to members of a particular racial group for, or to encourage, members of such a group to take advantage of opportunities for doing work in which comparatively few members of that group have been engaged.
How admirable that sounds when seen in cold print. Presumably disadvantaged West Indians or Asians can obtain special favourable exclusive training facilities both in and out of service to help them catch up. The only snag is that there are, at present, nearly 1,200,000 registered wholly unemployed in Britain, amongst whom the minority groups are disproportionately represented.
To match this, the main Government agency for retraining individuals—the so-called Training Opportunities Scheme, nicknamed TOPS—has about 60,000 training places to offer, that is, six places for every 100 unemployed. However, in addition, TOPS applicants are required to take pre-entry tests to show acceptable levels of literacy and numeracy, thus placing immigrants immediately at a disadvantage. Applicants under 19 are not eligible, thus disbarring the large number of unemployed West Indian school leavers. It is no wonder that immigrants account for only 3 per cent. of the 60,000 training places, which are, as I have already said, pathetically inadequate in view of the total of unemployment.
Admittedly, there is a big programme of in-service training in industry. But if one is concentrated—as immigrants are—overwhelmingly in a few plants, mostly doing unskilled work, one is really


in the wrong place for helpful in-service training, to begin with.
Therefore, the Bill, following the 1968 precedent, simply bypasses the realities of discrimination based upon disadvantage, and will have little, if any, real effect.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Bill is not strong enough in connection with affirmative action on Government contracts?

Mr. Alison: Certainly it does nothing about Government contracts, in spite of what the White Paper says. However, my general thesis is that the White Paper is designed to deal with racial prejudice. We are now dealing with an entirely different creature—racial disadvantage. That is a quite separate phenomenon. I believe that, again with the best will in the world, the second major innovation—the ending of the so-called racial balance provisions in training—will do little, if anything, to get to grips with the real disadvantages that poor immigrants suffer as a result of their deficiencies in language, and so on.
Like the 1968 Act, in addition to employment and training the Bill covers provisions concerning education, housing and goods and services and so on. In the 1968 Act there was a 17-line clause—Clause 5—about housing.
After eight years of operation, PEP reported that coloured people were grossly under-represented in the council housing sector. The Government's own White Paper states that the housing conditions of the coloured population have hardly improved in the last 10 or 15 years. I challenge any right hon. or hon. Gentleman who has listened to today's debate or studied the Bill to show how Clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill, where the 1968 housing provisions are elaborated and consolidated, will make the slightest difference to the gloomy housing situation that has persisted for 10 or 15 years. It will make no difference at all. It is the wrong kind of instrument, aiming at the wrong target. It deals with prejudice, but the real cause of the failure of West Indians and Asians to break through to council housing is that they do not know how to fill in the forms, register, or carry on a conversation with the housing officer. That is what the PEP made clear.
The hon. Member for Rossendale pointed out the failure of the poor Asians in the textile industry to fill in council housing application forms after a little literacy training at their work.
I turn to the provisions of enforcement contained in Clause 52 and subsequent clauses. Once again the realities of racial disadvantage have been blithely overlooked. PEP estimates that there must be tens of thousands of cases of potential or prima facie discrimination every year under the various headings of the old 1968 Act. I suspect that the House will agree that there must be—otherwise it would not have been worth trying to launch legislation in this area in 1968—a vast number of potential cases of prima facie discrimination which the Act was designed to nip in the bud or to destroy.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I do not want my words to be interpreted as racial prejudice, but it seems to me that where there are huge housing lists—as on Merseyside—where people have been waiting 10 or perhaps 2o years for a home, immigrants who come along subsequently should go on the end, not to the front of the list. It would cause trouble if they were given priority. The answer is to get more houses for all and to cut the housing waiting lists.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member has made a fair point—but why bring high-sounding housing provisions into a Bill of this sort, allegedly to deal with the phenomenon of profound discrimination against coloured immigrants in council housing, when, for the very reasons the hon. Member adduced, it is totally unequipped to come to grips with the problem? The immigrants will think that the housing section of the Bill is the key to prosperity, and that can lead to the inherent danger of disillusionment.
I was dealing with the enforcement provisions. The evidence of the Race Relations Board is that in the last seven years the completed cases it has handled have averaged well under 1,000 a year, of which only 15 per cent., on average, have resulted in the verdict of discrimination. That was in the situation in which the burden of bringing a charge was borne by the Board and not by the individual. This was the set-up under which,


nevertheless, to quote paragraph 36 of the White Paper,
most victims do not complain. Many do not know that they have suffered discrimination. Others are reluctant to complain because they do not want to re-live the humiliation which they have suffered, or because they have no confidence in the objectiveness of the complaints procedure, and the redress which it is likely to provide for them".
Is it likely, to draw on a Runnymede Trust publication, that the inarticulate, working-class black citizen who has a basic shyness, fear and suspicion of tribunals and courts, and who is by no means guaranteed legal aid, will leap enthusiastically into direct personal litigation under the new facilities offered by this legislation? I doubt it. He will take the line of least resistance and simply look elsewhere for a job. Yet he is the category of immigrant who is most exposed to discrimination.
The one provision of the Bill that is better calculated than others to secure some real changes for the better is that which provides for the new strategic rôle given to the Race Relations Commission under Clause 47 and following clauses. I take the point by the hon. Member for Oxford that this is perhaps one of the most important features, and I personally believe that it will be extremely valuable to have the Commission examining the actual situation in particular industries. I believe that one of its most useful rôles may be to bring home to Government, not to employers, the areas in which they should be concentrating resources, in matters such as numeracy, literacy, facilities for the language, and so on.
It will depend very largely on the new Commission securing good will and a spirit of friendly co-operation with employers. The operation will start against a background in which most firms already suffer from a surfeit of bureaucratic prying and form-filling at the hands of Government. The Commission will have to tread extremely cautiously, and if it is associated in the wrong sort of way with a particular militant local hostile community relations group it may well find that it receives a dusty welcome from local employers, who feel they are being got at by the back door. It is not certain that the Commission will work effectively, but it is well worth trying.
My welcome to the Bill is cautious and qualified. This sort of legislation is

legitimate in itself, but it can be dangerous if it is dressed up as something that will cure the problem that it is quite unequipped to deal with. It is rather like providing an aspirin to deal with a cancer. There is nothing wrong with aspirin, or with many of the provisions of this Bill. I shall not vote against it, but I urge the Government to realise that they may be bringing forward the wrong kind of machinery to deal with the intractable, long-term, underlying problem of disadvantage. If they do not get to grips with that problem, the Bill will literally do more harm than good.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): I agree with some of my critics to the extent that the issues we are discussing are some of the most important in this country, and it is right that Parliament should discuss them extensively. With one or two exceptions, including the leaflets fluttering from the Strangers Gallery, we have discussed them in a serious, informed and responsible manner, even though many things have been said with which I fundamentally disagree. I want to deal with as many of the serious points made in opposition to the Bill as I can and to try to put the legislation into context.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) suggested that I was honest enough to say that any number of black people could come in for as long as they liked. I have never suggested that. I have said that there are about 1¾ million black people who are here permanently. Our society is now multi-racial, whether hon. Members opposite like it or not. It is multi-racial and multi-cultural for the rest of our future history. These people who are here are our citizens and must be treated like any other citizens.
If this situation has arisen because of the attitude towards immigration in the past and if that attitude is criticised because it was unplanned and ill-considered when the new Commonwealth immigration began in the late 1950s, the fact is that these people are here now. If, as some people have suggested, we need to end immigration, we can end the citizenship rights, which they have acquired over the years, only if we do so in a humane and civilised


way. We cannot take away the rights given to them in the 1971 Act which provided that, having settled and thrown in their lot with this country, they should have the right to bring their wives and children so that families were reunited.
If the House ever took away the rights people have acquired by settling here and becoming part of our society, it would not only be inhuman and intolerant, in a way in which this country has never been intolerant, but it would be against all the codes of human rights to which we subscribe.
That is why there is still a continuing immigration commitment. Most of it relates to dependants, and the only other area of the commitment is to the citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies—just as most hon. Members are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The only such citizens now are those in East Africa. It seems unlikely that they will be able to stay there because national Governments have refused to allow them to stay. They have nowhere else to go and British Governments of both parties over the last 20 years have assured them they will be allowed to come here. If we take away that right, we take away also the right of white Rhodesians to come here in the same way. The attitude taken by both parties towards this problem is that we have a humane and moral duty—and probably an overriding legal duty, as the Attorney-General of a previous Government asserted—to take these people in any event. Those two commitments are the final commitments of Commonwealth immigration into this country, and we intend to wind them up as fast as we can.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is right. We have increased the rate of immigration so as to cut down those two final commitments as quickly as possible. The result of what we have done so far is that there is already a drying up in the number of vouchers issued in East Africa. The queue there has virtually disappeared. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that we are baleing out an ocean. We are not doing that in relation to the dependants in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Because we have said that we intend to end that commitment as fast as possible

and people recognise that the relationship aspect will be treated humanely, there has been an increase in the number of applications, but that increase is merely drying up the pool faster and the pool will be exhausted much more quickly.

Mr. Stokes: The charge against the Minister is not so much about illegal immigration as about extending the categories of people who can come here. It is reported that when he went to the Indian sub-continent he more or less advised any relative to come here and, unfortunately, any relative is coming here.

Mr. Lyon: Either the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the report or I was wrongly reported. The only extensions the Government have made to the immigration policy of the previous Government are those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson). We have declared an amnesty, and the extent of that amnesty is that 1,300 people have been allowed to settle.
Secondly, under considerable pressure from both sides of the House and with the unanimous approval of the House, we changed the rules so that women who were settled here could bring their fiancés or husbands to live here. That was the change. The House will recollect that for some time my right hon. Friend delayed making that change because he wanted to estimate the extent of the commitment. Under considerable pressure from both sides of the House, and to the great delight of many people who would otherwise have been estranged from their loved ones, we made that change. Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but I get letters from Opposition Members on this subject. One of the most vociferous critics of immigration control told me that, whatever he felt about immigration control, he hoped that I would allow the wife of a particular man to come into the country because otherwise the pair would be permanently separated.
I take the view that we have to get rid of those two commitments as quickly as we can. Then we shall be in a position to redefine the whole citizenship and immigration law in a way which will put an end permanently to this whole business. Within the next year or so we shall define the British citizen for the


first time. A British citizen will have free right of entry. Anyone else, whether a Commonwealth citizen or an alien, will have to subscribe to the immigration rules, which will be redefined so that they accord with our needs for labour and recognise family relationships. At that time, this debate on immigration control that has lasted for 20 years will, I hope, have ended.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister explain to the House what pre-existing commitment there was to allow fiancés in? I understand the argument about the commitment we made to dependants generally before the 1971 Act and before the 1962 legislation, but what pre-existing commitment was there to fiancés?

Mr. Lyon: There was no pre-existing commitment, which was one of the reasons for our delaying for some time before deciding to take on that responsibility. But, under the rules approved by the Conservative Government, we gave the right to men to bring in their wives and their fiancées. The whole burden of the case was that it seemed wrong that in these times there should be one rule for women and another rule for men. It was partly as a result of that, and partly also from humane considerations, that we changed that rule. But I repeat that the two other commitments to which I have referred are finite and are diminishing rapidly.
In 1968, when we passed the Race Relations Act, we devised a system whereby the brunt of the fight against discrimination was to be borne by the Race Relations Board, which would have the job of considering complaints, discussing them between the parties, hoping to arrive at conciliation, and only in the last resort taking them to court. As the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has said—the PEP studies have shown manifestly that there is still a considerable amount of discrimination in this country, as defined in Clause 3.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said that any civilised person discriminates. If all he means is that a person decides whom to like or what to like, that is, of course, the case, and no one would deny that right to discriminate in the sense of making a judgment. But if we make a judgment about someone else because of

his racial background or his colour, and then treat him differently and worse than we treat those in the majority group, that involves serious disadvantages for the person concerned. If, further, it takes place on the scale on which it is occurring in Britain today, the only way to change it is by force of law.
The 1968 Act succeeded in eliminating overt discrimination. We now have to do something about discrimination which is indirect, latent or concealed. We have decided not just to change the general powers of the Race Relations Board but to create a completely new structure which will have a completely new rôle.
The only exception I take to part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) is that I believe that the powers of the Race Relations Commission concerning strategic investigations will be by far the most important part of its work. One of my concerns has been that the Commission should not be burdened to anything like the same extent as is the Equal Opportunities Commission in the United States of America, by individual investigations of complaints. If, for instance, the Race Relations Commission decides that it wants to do a strategic investigation into the employment, promotion and general conditions at, say, Ford of Dagenham, and comes to the conclusion that a system of discriminatory practices has grown up, based upon racial grounds, within Ford, and then issues a non-discrimination notice putting an end to those discriminatory practices, it will affect the lives of thousands of people by one decision, whereas the Race Relations Board in the whole of its life considered 7,000 complaints most of which in the end had to be rejected.
The individual complaints system is important for the individual. I do not minimise it, and we have made provision for it. But the real test will be what the Commission does in its strategic investigation. It is for that reason that it is more than a brushing up of the 1968 Act, as the hon. Member for Barkston Ash described it. It is a completely new approach to the problems of dealing with racial discrimination.

Mr. Luard: I know that my hon. Friend is a lawyer and attaches great


importance to the processes of the law in clearing up such cases, but would he accept that a very large number of complainants will be deterred by the procedures of going through the law and those people will be dependent, just as they are today, on some form of conciliation such as the Commission will also have to do? It is at least a very important part of the functions of the Commission under the Bill.

Mr. Lyon: I recognise the difficulty that an individual complainant will have now that he has the right to go himself directly to the court, whereas before he had to go through the Race Relations Board. But it seemed to me right not only that he should be given this opportunity but that the burden should be upon him to go himself to assert his rights under the law. After all, why in principle should a black person be constrained to pursue his rights only through an indirect machine, a semi-Government agency, when a white person will be able to go directly to the court to exercise his legal rights? Since a white person, or a black person for that matter, who suffers unjust dismissal would go to the Industrial Tribunal direct, why in this case should he have to go to the Race Relations Board?
In principle, therefore, I am against the sense of paternalism that came from the old Race Relations Board procedure. The argument is, "Why do you not do both? Why not say that the Race Relations Board should do the strategic investigation and at the same time investigate the individual complaint?".
In addition to the point of principle I have made there is the whole problem of resources. Unless we are able to have a machine very considerably greater than that which we are creating, it has to make an option between one course or another. We recognise that in the initial stages there will be considerable difficulties for some complainants, and we are making provision for the Race Relations Commission to help them as much as it can. We have also made provision for a new questions procedure, contained in the Bill, allowing a complainant in such cases to get from the defendant answers which will help him to put his case. Equally, there is a whole range of other alternatives to help him.
In relation to non-employment cases in the county court he can get legal aid, so he should be able to get legal aid advice in respect of those cases. In respect of employment cases, because legal aid does not exist there—I wish that it did, but it is not likely to come very shortly—he will have to rely on his trade union, neighbourhood law society or community relations council, and all the other agencies which at present exist to help people who go to industrial tribunals.
There will be an increasing necessity for minority groups to make provision for helping their own people in this way, and it seems to me highly desirable that they should do so. I want to see a situation in which minority groups in this country feel a sense of independence and self-respect coming from their own self-help. I hope they will begin increasingly to help themselves in relation to problems of their own people in this way.
May I deal with some particular points in the Bill? The official Opposition complained about the position of clubs. We shall have to discuss that matter in Committee. We are keeping an open mind on the representations which have been made.
I should like to deal, first, with the general attitude of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). The CIU is concerned not with being allowed to discriminate on the ground of colour against some of its members—it has always been against that—but with the fact that, if we legislated in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), we should cover the CIU alone, not the clubs in Pall Mall or some other gentlemen's clubs. The suggestion was that we should, in effect, be saying "The CIU clubs do not have the same kind of privacy as gentlemen's clubs. Therefore, they are not entitled to the same respect in law as, say, gentlemen's clubs in Pall Mall." We were clear from the beginning that, if we legislated for clubs, we should legislate for clubs of every kind. That is in the Bill. The only exception is in Clause 26 which deals with clubs with a distinctive cultural connection.
Merely to say that it will be unlawful to discriminate on racial grounds for entry into a working men's club is not to say that it is no longer a private club. After all, the law says that one person cannot kill another in a working men's club, for it will be murder to do so. It does not take away the privacy of the club. It just says that the law has a certain part to play in relationships inside the club. That is all we are saying in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) suggested that would be counter-productive, because it would lead some clubs to take action which was inimical to their black members when otherwise they would not have done so. The hard facts of life are against the right hon. Gentleman. Within two weeks of the Preston club case being decided by the House of Lords, three clubs in the Birmingham area openly declared a colour bar. They said overtly what perhaps they had said before only indirectly, namely, "We will not allow black people into our club." In my view, that can be changed only by the force of law.
There are 4,000 clubs in the working men's club category, with 3½ million members. Therefore, they form an enormous part of the social life of the black citizen.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge referred to my constituency. I know full well that working men's clubs in York have to some extent superseded the public houses as places where people go for liquid and social refreshment. Throughout the North, working men's clubs have become the major area of social provision. If we were to leave them out of the Bill and to put public houses in the Bill, we should have a ludicrous situation. It would mean that a man had to be treated equally when he went to work, in the provision of housing, in his children's schooling, and when he went to the public house or to the cinema, but that when he went to the working men's club, where most of his comrades went, he was to be treated in a different way on racial grounds. For that reason, we felt that we had to legislate on clubs. I hope that we shall have the support of the House in that respect.
I was asked about positive discrimination. I dislike that term intensely. When I refer to this problem, I refer to correcting the disadvantages of our black citizens. Clauses 35, 37 and 38 relate to training and welfare provision for particular racial groups.
I was asked about incitement to racial hatred. I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate. No doubt we shall have to debate that issue at some length in Committee.
In relation to the shipping clause, and to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), may I say as strongly as I can that I was determined that if it were at all possible, the exemption contained in the 1968 Act would be taken out of this Bill. We put considerable pressure upon the shipping interests to do that. In fact we have done so for all purposes except the employment of seamen overseas where not recruited for the purpose of service in the United Kingdom.
There were two basic reasons why we allowed this exemption. One was that the Indian Government was very strongly against removing the exemption, for reasons that we can go into in detail in Committee. The second was that the shipping interests claimed that one-third of the cargo fleet that flies the British flag is now manned by Indian seamen—and be it known that they are paid less than one-third of what British seamen are paid. I regard that as an intolerable situation, but it was quite clear to us on investigation that if we had pressed this clause at that moment the likelihood was that a great many of the shipping interests would have flown a flag of convenience and moved out of the area of bringing that amount of money into the British balance of payments.
That was a serious factor which we had to consider, so we have allowed the exemption, albeit very reluctantly, to continue. However, we insist that in due course that exemption be phased out, and we have told the shipping interests that they now have to apply their minds to bringing their Indian seamen into line with their British seamen, and that over a very limited period of time this must be phased out. Again, we can discuss that


issue in Committee, if my hon. Friends agree.
I agree with what was said about the importance of monitoring. I do not see how we can have an equal opportunities policy of any kind unless we know how many black people and how many white people we have. I hope that in due course the Government will be able to give an effective lead in such monitoring.
I agreed with very much of the analysis made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash. There are two parts to solving the problem of ensuring satisfactory race relations in this country. One is to eliminate racial discrimination, and that is what this Bill is about. The other is to eliminate racial disadvantage, and we have not begun to tackle that whole area yet.
Racial disadvantage is of two kinds. One kind, which is shared by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), is in relation to housing. It does not matter whether a man is white or black, he has to take his turn on the housing list. In problems of housing, all are dealt with in the same way. But there is disadvantage in relation to the problems of language, fostering, child welfare, and whole areas of the cultural life of the black community in this country. The black community are at a disadvantage because they arrived here only in the last 20 years and have still to develop, within

our majority culture, their own standards within their own culture. There is, therefore, a whole area of disadvantage. That is a problem that only the Government can solve and it is their responsibility ultimately to solve it. One of the first tasks of my right hon. Friend's Advisory Committee on Race Relations will be to apply its mind to the ways in which the Government can set about doing that.

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman was less than honest with the House when he spoke about United Kingdom passport holders. He spoke as if they were all in East Africa, which he knows not to be the case. He has told us that he intends to increase the rate of intake of such people, and very soon, apparently. The facts are that there are many people entitled to British passports elsewhere in the world, particularly in Singapore, Hong Kong, and other parts of Africa. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about them? What is the Government's policy about that reservoir of people who are entitled to United Kingdom passports?,

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 8.

Division No. 81.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kaufman, Gerald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell


Atkinson, Norman
Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamborn, Harry


Bates, Alf
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamond, James


Bean, R. E.
Freud, Clement
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Beith, A. J.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bldwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Gould, Bryan
Loyden, Eddie


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Luard, Evan


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McCartney, Hugh


Carmichael, Neil
Hayman, Mrs Helene
McElhone, Frank


Cartwright, John
Heffer, Eric S.
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hooley, Frank
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cohen, Stanley
Hooson, Emlyn
Mackenzie, Gregor


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Madden, Max


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hunter, Adam
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cralgen, J. M. (Meryhill)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Marks, Kenneth


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoin)
Marquand, David


Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Greville
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Mendelson, John


Deakins, Eric
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Mikardo, Ian


Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Edge, Geoff
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Molloy, William




Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Tomlinson, John


Newens, Stanley
Slikin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Torney, Tom


Noble, Mike
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Silverman, Julius
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ovenden, John
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Parker, John
Small, William
Watkins, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Watkinson, John


Penhallgon, David
Spearing, Nigel
Wellbeloved, James


Perry, Ernest
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stallard, A. W.
Williame, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Reid, George
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stoddart, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rooker, J. W.
Stott, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rose, Paul B.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sandelson, Neville
Thompson, George
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Sedgemore, Brian
Tinn, James
Mr. John Ellis.


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)






NOES


Budgen, Nick
Ross, William (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molyneaux, James
Stokes, John
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stott, Roger
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook.


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — RACE RELATIONS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved.

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to discrimination on racial grounds and relations between people of different racial

groups, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament off—

(a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying any expenditure falling to be made by him under or by virtue of that Act;
(b) the remuneration of assessors appointed for the purpose of proceedings under that Act in a county court or sheriff court;
(c) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in undertaking, or financially assisting the undertaking by other persons of, research into any matter connected with relations between persons of different racial groups;
(d) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]

Orders of the Day — PETROL (LEAD CONTENT)

10.11 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the proposals for EEC Directives for limiting the lead content of petrol and for biological and air quality standards for lead as contained in documents R/3113/73 and R/1150/75, and the outcome of the Government review of lead in petrol.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment, in line 4, at end add
accepts the principle of reducing the maximum lead content of petrol to 0·40 grams per litre as proposed by the EEC; and, whilst recognising that this will have an adverse effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments, nevertheless calls on Her Majesty's Government to take appropriate steps to achieve this aim by staged reductions".

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention and that of the House to the last phrase of the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and his hon. Friend's which says:
the outcome of the Government review of lead in petrol".
I understand from a Written Answer given by the Minister of State last Friday that the he intends to tell us during his remarks what the outcome of the Government review of lead in petrol will be. However, I understood that it was the custom of this House that any motion moved contains an expression of opinion or fact in its wording, refers to a matter on the record, a matters of common knowledge or to a document, paper or instrument which is before the House and which may have been obtained two or three days previously. However, in this case it is true to say that no such piece of paper and no such document exists. Therefore, the House is being asked to reach a decision on a matter which the Minister will put before it only verbally. I am not suggesting that it is thereby out of order. Quite clearly it is on the Order Paper and therefore in order.
If my understanding of the matter is correct I hope that, perhaps, the Select Committee on Procedure will look at it because it puts hon. Members at a dis-

advantage in scrutinising the proposals, particularly as the motion appeared on the Order Paper only yesterday.

Mr. John Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The object of these debates is to put to the Government the views of the House on important matters that arise in the Community. It is exceedingly difficult to put any valid opinion this evening if the Government have achieved a degree of knowledge and understanding of this problem which is not shared with the House. I in no way wish to suggest that the debate should be ruled ineffective, but I believe that by their actions the Government have made it exceedingly difficult for the House to carry out their wishes in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), and to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who gave me ample notice that he would raise this matter tonight. The hon. Member has probably done the House a service because his remarks will undoubtedly be noted by those who can attend to such matters in the future. However, that is not me.

Mr. Howell: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. Perhaps I may say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) that nothing is further from our minds than attempting to be in any way discourteous to the House. It is true that in debating the motion we are seeking to debate the effects of the EEC Directives. I hope that we have not got the matter wrong, but I certainly undertake to consider the points that have been raised. The Government thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if during my contribution I gave an indication of the Government's thinking upon the Directives before the House. I have no doubt that if the House wishes to return to the subject at other times, it will be able to do so. If it is thought in any part of the House that any discourtesy has occurred, I apologise. That was the last thing that we intended to bring about.
I start by dealing with the history of these matters. There are two separate


Directives, one for limiting the lead content of petrol and one for biological and air quality standards for lead. In 1972 the then Government announced a three-stage reduction in the amount of lead in petrol, to take effect as follows: the first stage, in January 1973, was to reduce the maximum level of 0·84 grammes per litre to 0·64. Stage two as proposed for 1st January 1974, but that was postponed until 1st November 1974 because of the oil crisis. Under the stage two programme the level was brought down from 0·64 grammes per litre to 0·55. It was further proposed that there should be a stage three to come into effect from 1st January 1976, when the level was to have been reduced to 0·45 grammes per litre. This was deferred, as I think the House will recall, in view of the full review which we were considering of the economic and medical implications.
That is what has got us into the little difficulty that we have been discussing. It was because the Government announced at that time that there would be a full review before the announcement of any further reductions, and because we have now conducted that review, that we thought that this debate was the right time to acquaint the House with the results of our review, which was well known to the House.
A further part of the history of the matter is that on 9th December 1974 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced that no further reductions would be made pending the review to which I have just referred.
This matter has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee, and it is as a result of the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation that we are having this debate.
I now turn to the two Directives. I deal first with the Directive which sets biological and air quality standards to protect the health of the population outside the place of work. I will give the proposed standards in that Directive. I deal first with the biological standards. Those are that 100 per cent. of the population should not exceed 35 micro-grammes of lead per 100 millilitres of blood, that 90 per cent. should not exceed 30 microgrammes of lead per 100 millilitres of blood, and that 50 per cent. should not exceed 20 microgrammes of lead per 100 millilitres of blood. On

the second part of this Directive, dealing with lead in air, the proposal is for an annual mean level of 2 microgrammes of lead per cubic metre and that a monthly median level of 8 microgrammes should be attained.
Compliance with these standards would be monitored by taking blood samples on a uniform basis and measuring the level of atmospheric lead in large urban residential areas. The various States would be required to take the necessary action where the levels I have quoted are found to be exceeded.
Perhaps the House will allow me to make a progress report. The United Kingdom has taken a wide range of action to prevent possible risks to public health from lead sources. In respect of both Directives it is the totality of lead in the atmosphere and in petrol to which we have to have regard. Lead can be consumed in a variety of ways. It can be consumed not only from breathing but from eating and drinking. Food and drink possibly play, in some parts of the country, a greater part in this consumption than the air that is breathed. We have taken a wide range of action, and especially monitoring action. Large- and small-scale monitoring exercises are being held to assess the problem of lead water pipes in soft-water areas, a situation to which we shall no doubt increasingly turn our attention as more factual and scientific evidence becomes available.
There has been a limitation of the lead content in paints for indoor use. It has been limited by voluntary agreement to 1 per cent. There has been a limitation by regulation to 0·5 per cent. for toys. Pencils and coatings are limited by regulation to a lead content of 0·025 per cent. The EEC proposal for paints is nearly ready to go to the Council. I understand that there is a further proposal for toys which is now at an early stage of drafting.
Foodstuffs is another area in which there has been a great deal of activity. The lead content is limited by Lead in Food Regulation 061 to a maximum of two parts per million for most food items.
There has been much activity as regards cooking utensils. Concern has been expressed in some quarters. The


regulations are based on BSI standards for ceramic tableware, cooking ware and storage vessels. There are limits for lead and cadmium in solution. The EEC proposal for ceramics is nearly ready for the Council. Another proposal for enamel ware is at an earlier stage of development, but no doubt it will come forward in due course.
Having outlined the area of our concern and activity, I hope that I shall be able to offer a measure of reassurance. Practical measures of tackling potential risks at source are the best way of preventing individuals absorbing too much lead. The present Government and the Conservative Government have always supported such measures. We now have a wide-ranging monitoring and survey system available in potential risk areas which ensures that we are alerted to any possible dangers to health. By monitoring the physical environment, such as air and dust, the people by means of blood sampling and analyses, we believe that we are succeeding in our objectives. These surveys on the whole, have been reassuring for the general population—people not especially exposed to lead effects, and they provide a basis for remedial action where an undue exposure to lead has been discovered.
I turn to some of the criticisms of the Commission's proposals. We believe that the proposal in the Directive goes a little too far, because the scientific evidence, despite several years' work, is not clear enough, in our judgment, to justify precise standards. Precise standards imply that anybody with blood lead levels over the limits, or exposed to air lead levels over the limits, would be in danger. My professional advisers do not believe that to be the case. In this country we believe that, until further scientific evidence becomes available, we should follow the sage advice given to us by the Royal Commission.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the Minister accept that there are areas in Glasgow and Manchester where there is a higher lead content in water, due to the use of lead pipes for conveying that water? As a result of the combination of an increase of lead in the blood stream through drinking water, which might not necessarily be harmful, with an increase of lead in the blood stream

by inhaling an amount of lead, which again might not be harmful in itself, dangerous situations might develop. Will the Minister take that factor into account?

Mr. Howell: Yes. I shall deal with that matter if I have the opportunity to reply to the debate later. The position as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) is an area of concern, and we are taking action to undertake a much more detailed analysis and survey of people at risk, particularly because of the lead content in old water pipes and in water generally.
The Government believe that we should rely in this respect on the Fifth Report of the Royal Commission. Let me state briefly what that would achieve. First, we should set targets to be achieved—targets that can be amended or changed according to standards adopted in the light of further evidence. Secondly, by this means we would ensure that action is taken as necessary to deal with particular sources of lead pollution. This requires the identification of potential areas of risk. We are already taking this course through extensive monitoring programmes. The proposals are inadequate in that respect, but they can be suitably amended.
We should like to see the Directive amended. The Government will seek to do this in Brussels. We seek to amend the Directive so that air-lead monitoring is used to identify areas where exposure is higher than as defined in the target level. Secondly, blood-lead monitoring is to be used where such areas have been identified, to assess the effect on public health. We believe that that kind of approach would indicate more clearly whether detrimental effects have arisen and, if so, where and what action might be needed.
I turn to the second Directive, on lead in petrol, in relation to which there is a more immediate demand for action. Let me deal first with medical advice in regard to those who may be at risk. The original programme was based on the advice of a former Chief Medical Officer. The advice on which the Government are now acting is based not only on the advice of that chief medical officer but on the fact that he agreed with his predecessor.
The advice is that the total quantity of lead emitted from vehicles should not be allowed to exceed the 1971 levels and, if possible, should be reduced below those levels. This is supported by the Physical Environmental Sub-Committee which is a Department of Health and Social Security advisory body, bringing together leading professional and academic opinion on the medical effects of air pollution. It advised that although the proof of risk is not categorical, at present levels it would be prudent to reduce exposure where possible. Of course, particular concern should be shown for those people especially at risk, notably the very young.
The Commission's proposal is based on the same principle as that of the Chief Medical Officer's advice to the Government—namely, that emissions of lead from petrol should be kept to the 1971 levels. Therefore, there is no disagreement in principle between the Commission's proposal or the advice which the Government have received. However, there is a difference in connection with the timing and the levels of the controls which are proposed. We think that the Commission's proposal takes account of the desire of some member States to fix very low limits for lead in petrol.
The limit proposed from 1st January 1976 was, in fact 0·40 grammes per litre. The European Parliament recommended that the date should now be 1st January 1977, and that a second stage reduction to 0·15 grammes per litre should not take place until after a review in 1979. Germany is already at a lower level, and most other member States are believed to be prepared to accept the 0·40 level, although the timing may vary between one State and another.
There is, of course, a serious balance of payments aspect to the argument, which has to be weighed against the health factor to which I have just referred.
To keep within the 1971 levels would mean cutting the maximum lead content to 0·50 grammes per litre now, to 0·45 in 1978; and to 0·40 in 1981, given current trends of petrol consumption. The additional balance of payments costs arising from following that policy would be about £70 million between now and the end of 1980.
The Government have taken all these factors into account as well as environmental opinions, and have decided to accept the advice of the Chief Medical Officer as the only responsible line that we could recommend to the House. No absolute proof of risk is available, but clearly prudent steps are necessary if we are to avoid any degree of risk. Further, more, such a policy would bring the United Kingdom close to the position adopted by most of the member States.
Therefore, it is the Government's policy, on which of course I shall be happy to listen to opinions from all parts of the House, that we should adopt the Commission's standard of 0·40 grammes per litre by 1981. I hope that the House will be convinced that there is no difference of principle between the Government and the Commission.
I inform the House that before implementing the first stage we would, of course, approach the oil and motor industries with a view to reaching agreement on how soon the first further reduction to 0·50 grammes per litre can be applied. If we went immediately, as the Commission proposes, to its level the cost to the House would be not £70 million—the cost of the Government's proposals—but £170 million on the balance of payments. The House will therefore see what an important issue of economic significance this is.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Has my right hon. Friend taken into account the fact that we shall be producing our own oil in that period? In a letter to me he gave the impression that he had not taken that into account and was referring only to imported oil.

Mr. Howell: I hope that I did not give that impression. My hon. Friend is right on the ball. I have given the House the facts about the balance of payments. I was about to make the point that another excellent reason, linked with the balance of payments consideration, for staging the reduction in this way is that as British oil increases in quantity by 1981 we should be able to reach these levels in the knowledge that the additional oil necessary would come from our own sources. Therefore the three-stage reduction would almost entirely coincide with increased productivity from British oil sources.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: If the tetraethyl lead is taken out of the petrol, more oil will be needed and therefore more oil will have to be imported. There may be a miraculous turn of events in the North Sea, but I think that supplies will be insufficient and that more oil will have to come from the Middle East anyway.

Mr. Howell: The figures I have given of the cost to the balance of payments take account of both the increased production of British oil and the factors the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has referred to. The net effect of them, as far as we can calculate, would be a cost to the balance of payments of £70 million. If we adopted the EEC proposal the cost would be £170 million. If the lead is taken out of petrol it becomes less efficient. That means that more petrol is needed to achieve the same result.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend's announcement is important, but will we be better off by 1981 or will we simply stand still over that period, in view of the prediction of the increased volume of traffic?

Mr. Howell: Our calculations are based on present market trends in the use of petrol, allied to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bedford.
The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) accepts the principle of reaching a level of 0.40 grammes per litre as proposed by the EEC and endorses that principle. I am grateful that it recognises the United Kingdom balance of payments problem. That is obviously a major consideration for us. It urges us to reach this level by appropriate stages and also to keep the matter constantly under review, which the Government certainly will do.
Therefore I hope that the House will think it right, having heard my hon. Friend, to accept the amendment, and I would advise that course of action.
Our decisions on lead in petrol conform with all the medical advice that we have received and will keep the amount of emissions down to the level of 1971, in line with the advice from the Department of Health and Social Security advisory committee.
We shall continue with research into the problems of lead and if there is further evidence of risk to health we shall consider moving to lower limits even more quickly than I have already announced.
At present, the evidence does not justify the precise standards for lead in air or in blood proposed by the Commission, but we shall seek agreement on identifying and tackling the areas of risk. Our decisions are in conformity with the spirit of the Commission's proposals and I have pleasure in commending them to the House.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Although these procedures may not always seem satisfactory to some hon. Members, we welcome the opportunity of discussing these matters of some significance. The significance of lead levels in blood to mental and physical health is undoubted. This is also one of our first opportunities to discuss environmental issues in a European context and we welcome that.
Environmental quality objectives are important not just for those working and living in the United Kingdom but for those who trade and travel in Europe. I think we are agreed that the setting of objectives is the right approach. If the Community can agree on the objectives, member States can be left to choose their own ways of achieving them.
I think we are also agreed that absolute emission standards are a thoroughly unsatisfactory and inflexible way of trying to achieve these environmental objectives.
Almost any environmental improvement costs money—in some cases a great deal—and it is wise to identify areas where we can get the best results from the economic, scientific and medical resources which are in limited supply.
Lead presents a difficult problem because, as the Minister said, there are conflicts of opinion among experts about the facts and even more about the interpretation of the facts. This uncertainty indicates that we should speak with caution and err on the side of caution in our decisions, especially as children are particularly at risk.
There is not yet sufficient evidence to enable the medical profession to identify


the children at risk. There is the relatively easy problem of clinical symptoms—though we cannot be sure at what level these appear—and the more worrying sub-clinical symptoms. Behaviour patterns can be affected by the level of lead in the blood and it appears possible that this occurs at much lower levels than was previously thought likely. The reduction of lead in all areas is a desirable objective.
Lead can be absorbed by ingestion and by inhalation. It is both an acute and a chronic poison, and we wish to minimise the burden of lead in the body. The Minister gave a progress report on lead in the atmosphere. Only a small percentage of blood lead levels is attributable to lead in the atmosphere.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Is that an established fact?

Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman studies the evidence in this country, the United States and elsewhere, he will find it is accepted, even by those who press for an absolute ban on the use of lead in petrol, that the link between lead in blood and lead in the atmosphere is about 1:1. Therefore, even a high lead level in the atmosphere of 10 micro-grammes per cubic metre increases blood lead level only by 10 microgrammes per millilitre. That level would occur only if one stayed in that atmosphere all the time. A person standing on the divide on the M4 would be in that sort of atmosphere, but not many of us would want to spend our lives there. That is not to minimise the size of the problem. Anything that increases the body burden of lead is undesirable. If the lead in the atmosphere increases the body burden of lead, anything that we can do at a reasonable price to diminish the amount of lead in the atmosphere is worth doing, but lead in the atmosphere is by far the smaller part of the source of lead in the blood.

Mr. Skeet: Does my hon. Friend accept the view that more lead enters the body through food and drink than enters it through the atmosphere?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has anticipated my next words. I did not intend, for personal reasons, to dodge the issue of food and drink. It is a matter

of general agreement that food and drink are sources of ingestion of lead. Water is one of the most worrying sources, and contributes much more substantially than does lead in the atmosphere to the body burden of lead. Nearly all foods and nearly all types of drink, including beer, contain some lead.
I have been looking at the list, which ranges from wines to winkles. They are all equally guilty. The highest lead contents are to be found in herbs and molluses, but none of us is likely to diet exclusively on those. Tomatoes have a relatively high source of lead, and most vegetables contain lead. The Minister said that the effect of growing vegetables near smelters was being monitored. Another area which is his responsibility is the use of sewage sludge as a fertiliser, which increases the lead content of vegetables. This aspect is being monitored and studied. The United Kingdom has regulations on lead in food which closely control the lead content in food and drink and can be regarded as a standard that other countries could well decide to emulate.
We need Community standards on the monitoring of lead content in food and drink. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to Community standards for paint and toys being now well advanced, because these constitute other major means in ingestion of lead. In children, paint and toys are more usually the sources of lead when one gets particular problem cases. The cases I have heard of have nearly all been attributable to paint or toys, and not to food. So if we can push on with more rapid Community progress on standards for paint and toys and food, it will be very welcome.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have your protection? A number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, which will last only one and a half hours. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State took half an hour. Can we have a little protection from the Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am confident that everyone is aware that this debate lasts for one and a half hours. A number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to


speak, and we have an amendment to be moved. I can say no more.

Mr. Sainsbury: The fact that we are discussing two Directives and a serious problem is not irrelevant to what the hon. Lady has said.
I turn now to the second Directive, because I think that one can really accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the first. The second goes rather too far, however. The real problem is the need to identify the danger areas, particularly when one has such dubious scientific evidence on the analysis of blood.
The second Directive has the more important economic consequences and we want to be cautious about it. The Government's proposal could be held to be sufficiently cautious.
Many references have been made to what is happening in the United States. I looked up the reports of the hearings in the United States Court of Appeal in the case between the Ethyl Corporation and the Environmental Protection Agency, and ended up by being even more confused as to the scientific validity of petrol as a great cause of the lead level in blood. The court said:
The Office of Science and Technology has refuted the medical, evidence that supposedly supports the EPA Administrator's desire to reduce lead content of gasoline. OST finds the Administrator's position in this regard unsupported by the evidence.
We have a great conflict of scientific evidence here, and in this situation it seems to me that we ought to move forward with some caution. Therefore, I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about a phased programme which will allow us an opportunity to monitor and hear about the experience in other countries, particularly the United States and Germany, where they are conducting experiments on lower lead content in petrol and evaluating the economic effects as well.
Such a programme would also enable us to consider more fully the possible use of lead traps, which might be a cheaper way of dealing with the problem of reducing lead emission. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a cost of £70 million. Although that might be much less than would be incurred by moving straight to the Commission's suggestion, it is still fairly substantial.
The Government's approach is right, and I think that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) will agree that it is not out of sympathy with her amendment, because it allows us to speed up, if the evidence shows that we should do so, the reduction in the lead content or, alternatively, to change the programme if other evidence emerges. We support the Government's approach here, and we believe that it is in conformity with the spirit not only of the Commission's proposals but of the amendment.

10.55 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: L beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add
accepts the principle of reducing the maximum lead content of petrol to 0·40 grams per litre as proposed by the EEC; and, whilst recognising that this will have an adverse effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments, nevertheless calls on Her Majesty's Government to take appropriate steps to achieve this aim by staged reductions".
I thank my right hon. Friend for indicating that he is prepared to accept the amendment.
It is almost 12 months since I initiated a debate in the House on a number of public health hazards, including the dangers of the use of lead in petrol. We seem to have moved some way since that time, but each time we have a debate on this subject I find myself becoming more of an absolutist concerning lead in petrol. I am moving rapidly to the position where I should like to see lead disappear from petrol altogether. In spite of the modest nature of my amendment, that is my basic view.
With the conflict of evidence we have, and the dilemma that we and other countries are in today concerning balance of payments and financial difficulties, we are in some danger of minimising the health hazards and of maximising the financial difficulties. It is very difficult to keep the right balance between the two.
As to the health hazards, we already know—we have been reminded again tonight—about the lead that we absorb into our bodies from food and water and in other ways. We know that this can cause damage to the brain, to the nervous system, and to the heart. We have been reminded that children are particularly vulnerable in this respect. It seems nothing short of madness, in these


circumstances, deliberately to add lead to petrol as well.
As the United States Environmental Protection Agency has pointed out, petrol
is a source of air and dust lead which can be readily and significantly reduced in comparison to these other sources.
There is steadily growing evidence linking lead as a causative or exacerbating factor in dulling the mental processes of children, and also in hyperactivity and other pre-delinquent behaviour disorders in children.
Additionally, in this country and in America there have been studies on stillborn children which have shown grossly elevated levels of lead and/or cadmium relative to those found in normal healthy children.
In the past, with health hazards, we have often tended to minimise the dangers until they became so obvious that we could not neglect them any longer. I believe that the subtle and insidious nature of lead poisoning puts us in danger of doing that today, and it really is urgent to remove this self-inflicted poison as rapidly as possible.
The suggested 0·40 grammes per litre in the amendment is a modest requirement and, as we have been reminded, it complies with the EEC Directive that we are discussing. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the amendment allows for the reduction to be in stages. My right hon. Friend has indicated the Government's view of those stages, but I hope that the stages will not be so protracted as my right hon. Friend has indicated, and that it will not be necessary to take so long about it. I am not at all sure—I am not convinced by what my right hon. Friend said—that there will be any real cash benefit in so doing. It is difficult matter. We have to take the figures we are given. But I hope that if my right hon. Friend finds, when he comes to it, that he can do it much more quickly without the financial difficulties he envisages, he will do it, if possible, in one fell swoop, or certainly more quickly than he has suggested.
I hope that eventually we shall be able to go as far as Germany has done and as the EEC Directive requires us to do eventually, and get to the second stage figure of 0·15 grammes per litre.
Although I have not included this point in the amendment, there is some concern that it can be a waste of time to control maximum lead levels in petrol unless some way is found of discouraging petroleum companies from increasing average lead levels. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this point. It is outside the scope of the debate, but it is an important matter.
It has been suggested that this problem could be tackled in various ways—possibly by a tax on organo-lead petrol additives. Since these compounds have no technical uses, other than as petrol additives, the tax would be selective, in effect, but it would deal with the problem. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that, if necessary in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In any case, coming back to the amendment, in taking action in this country my right hon. Friend will have the advantage of studying the results of the dramatic reduction to 0·15 grammes per litre introduced in West Germany at the beginning of January. It is early days to assess the West German results, but they can be important for us in what we are doing here. They seem to indicate—in fact, this is confirmed by Esso Europe—that
low lead petrol will give the same performance as previous qualities".
I do not believe that my right hon. Friend sees that as a possible difficulty tonight, although in previous debates it has been raised as a possible difficulty. West German experience seems to indicate that it is no longer a difficulty.

Mr. Sainsbury: I think that the correct phrase is not "will", but "can be made to", and at a cost.

Mrs. Butler: I want to mention cost later.
We also know that leaded petrol causes more engine wear, more silencer corrosion and greater deterioration of lubricating oils, as well as more pollution from exhaust emissions, than equivalent lead-free grades. This is the point about petrol price increases and the cost of new refineries. According to the West German experience, both of these fears seem to have been exaggerated. My right hon. Friend will no doubt have seen a recent article in The Sunday Times which


made that point. We may not appear to take too much from this, but it may be helpful.
I recognise in the amendment the balance of payments difficulties involved in reducing the lead content of petrol with a consequent increase in oil imports as a result, but it looks as though these difficulties will be less than the Department anticipates. My right hon. Friend quoted some alarming figures, but, in reply to the article in The Sunday Times to which I have referred, Professor Bryce Smith, in a follow-up letter, quotes the United States Environmental Protection Agency's report. I have quoted that in the House before. It is to the effect that
low lead regulations…will have a minimal effect on crude oil requirements during this decade.
I do not know how the Americans have arrived at their figures and I do not know how we have arrived at ours, but there is such a disparity between the two that one wonders whether the balance of payments difficulties are as great as we are anticipating. I hope that they will not be.
Overriding everything else must be the question of the health dangers. These are so serious that I think this is a very modest amendment. I am glad that the Government are prepared to accept it. It will not only be valuable in itself; to the many environmentalists and members of the general public who are worried about lead pollution it will be an encouragement that the Government are moving in the right direction. I hope that the amendment, though modest, will be a springboard for immediate action to reduce the lead content of petrol significantly.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: I should like to concentrate on what has been called the second Directive but is in fact the first—that dealing with the lead content of petrol. What the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) said will serve to illustrate, as well as one can, the fact that the doubt in this field about environmental, cost and health factors is so great as to make one, in normal circumstances, almost wish to divide against the motion. But since we are asked only to "take note", that seems a contradic-

tion in terms, so I will not persist, as the Minister will be glad to hear.
I have three essential points to put. First, this Directive was put down and recommended for a debate over 14 months ago. This is an admirable example of an issue which could profitably have been discussed at a much earlier stage, instead of the Government trying to creep under the curtain of the House to get what they want done in the Council of Ministers. The views of the House could have been taken into account and an on-going discussion might have resulted. Certainly the enlightenment supplied by the early part of the Minister's speech was fairly limited. It did not reflect the anxieties that I expressed in pursuit of the point of order at the start of the debate. This is an indication of the need to get these things debated in good time.
The second consideration relates to health and the environment. I do not speak as a hard-hearted man, indifferent to the health and environment of the nation. I was for many years a member of the Clean Air Council and have taken a great interest in these matters for a very long time. But I realised from my membership of that admirable body that a great deal of doubt hangs over the question of dangerous substances in the atmosphere.
At a time when the sulphur content of fuel and gas oils was very much under discussion, one of the Council's chief medical advisers said that he had spent the equivalent of weeks with his head in a compartment deluged with SO2 and that the sole result was that he had escaped any attack of the common cold.
Knowledge of the health hazards involved is very limited. If that doubt needed to be illustrated, hon. Members may have seen a brief article in The Times at the end of last week about a subject treated by the Proceedings of the Royal Society, in Volume 192, No. 1106, 31st December last year. It concerned the endeavour to identify the accumulation of lead in different parts of the body, to see whether that degree of knowledge could lead to any conclusions about the deleterious effect of this material in the kind of conditions in which people are exposed to it in this country. The issues involved there are strictly scientific and medical but such is the absence of profound knowledge about the impact of


these materials on the human body that it is sufficient to say that we believe they are dangerous and that we should therefore go in for some programme of suppression.
This is a kind of pagan superstition which affects us in this matter as in so many other things. Hundreds of things can damage the human body, taken in sufficient doses and in sufficiently damaging conditions, but until we have a profound knowledge of the subject it seems extraordinarily unwise to say that we will handle something we do not know about by means of restrictions we do not understand. Yet that is precisely what is proposed here.

Mr. Hooley: Surely, if there is a great degree of uncertainty it is more sensible to proceed on a cautious and restrictive line than to allow an accumulation of poison to go ahead without knowing what is going to happen.

Mr. Davies: On that basis one could very well start on a cautious programme for restriction of the intake of potatoes. That is being brought about by economic factors at present, but it would be possible to produce people, if they were determined enough to do it, with just sufficient arguments to show that the intake of starch in large quantities and in disadvantageous conditions could be extraordinarily damaging to the human frame. One could do the same in practically every area of activity. That is what worries me from the environmental and health point of view.
It is not that I am against these measures. I am strongly in favour where there is definite proof.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the danger about the whole Directive is that it does not have those precise parameters or any indication of the scientific base on which it has been reached?

Mr. Davies: I agree. The Minister quoted the Commission, saying that proof of risk is not categorified—a rather curious expression—but I am sure that he intended to say that there was no evidence. That is perhaps the truth.
I was a little perplexed by some of the Minister's remarks about the econo-

mic considerations. If we assume that there is a saving in external account arising from the happy circumstances of an increase in production of crude oil from our own indigenous sources, it must be right to say that the displacement of imports is just as much a saving as the limitation of imports by other means. One either presumes that one will sell externally, and thereby enjoy the benefit of the revenue derived from the production of oil, or one off-sets it against internal consumption. Therefore, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's balance of payments arguments stand up, and I ask him to reconsider them. They do not seem to be very well thought out.
But some of the other economic considerations are very profound. In talking to the European Parliament in November the Commissioner gave some of the figures. He pointed out that moving to the 0·4 grammes per litre position, which is what the Commission proposes, involved the Community in a capital undertaking of 300 million dollars, and that the annual costs would be about 150 million dollars. He said that the effect in terms of net waste against a programme of maximum economy in the use of energy is about 8,000 tonnes a year. That seems to me an anomalous proposition. There is insufficient knowledge on the health and environmental factors to expose ourselves to those costs.
The Directive proposes that there should be just the mean operation by making the regular grade 0·15 grammes and the premium grade 0·42 grammes and any admixture following the line of the average between those two. But to move to the 0·15 grammes means exposing ourselves to capital costs of 650 million dollars and an annual cost of about 350 million dollars.
On inconclusive evidence it is extraordinary to use such funds at a time when we are talking about the need for economy and are, for instance, agonisingly contemplating our inability sufficiently to aid countries in a desperately bad condition. It would be ridiculous to imagine that sums of that kind would procure in this continent improvements of the kind which, if they were used in India for example, would be overwhelmingly more important to people's health.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Alf Bates: I join the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) in talking chiefly about the document relating to lead in petrol. Lead is put into petrol in the form of tetraethyl lead or tetra-methyl lead as an anti-knock compound to provide the most economic method of upgrading petrol to give a higher octane rating.
I want to state my constituency concern at the beginning. These lead products are made for this country by the Associated Octel Company, which has its major plant, employing more than 2,000 people, in my constituency. Clearly, any attempt to reduce the use of the products will have a serious impact on jobs. But I must say to the House, as I have said to people in the company, that I would not support the manufacture of those products if I thought that they were a serious hazard to health. However, I believe that they are not.
It is true that the ingestion of lead in large quantities is seriously harmful to health, but there is—and always has been, well before the invention of the motor car—a constant ingestion and excretion of lead. That creates a balance in the blood. It is not a curse of modern civilisation. Even in fairly primitive communities, people have quantities of lead in the blood which are comparable with those of people living in our own society.
The concern which has been expressed is emotionally understandable but rationally misguided. Under normal circumstances man has a balance in the blood of between 10 and 40 micrograms per 100 millilitres of blood. There is nothing wrong with that. It is abnormally high levels that are dangerous.
What we should be doing, instead of playing about with the small quantities of lead in the atmosphere, is to examine and eradicate the causes of those peculiarly high levels. That is not what we are doing here. We are arguing about marginal amounts of intake.
Both the documents, with their emphasis on lead in the atmosphere, are misguided. First, they give a misleading impression that current levels of lead in people's blood may be dangerously high. That is not true. I refer to the White Paper from the Ministry of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food last year on the Regulations about lead in food. Evidence there from the Department of Health and Social Security's working group appears to contradict some of the evidence that my right hon. Friend has put before the House tonight. On page 23 we read:
We do not consider that the presently available information is sufficient to indicate a potential hazard to halth at presently accepted normal blood lead levels.
Secondly, and most important, the documents give the impression that lead in the atmosphere is a major contributor to lead in the blood. That also is not true. Paragraph 6 of the DHSS evidence, on page 20 of the White Paper, says:
Food is the major source of lead intake for the general public and is estimated to provide about 200µg lead per day in the UK.
There is a considerable body of evidence that it is not airborne lead that is the problem. The interdepartmental Report, "Lead in the Environment and Its Significance to Man", is clear about this in a number of places. After examining the problem, it says in paragraph 39 on page 15:
Hence in the great majority of cases, airborne lead seems unlikely to account for more than a minor proportion of the total lead uptake of the body.
In the following paragraph the Report is more specific:
Data for the UK are sparse, but one study found no general relationshilp between airborne and blood lead levels. More extensive American experience shows that over a range of airborne lead levels of 0·17 to 3·39 µg/m3
—that covers the typical ranges of rural and urban environments—
no significant correlation exists between airborne levels and blood lead levels of exposed people.

Mr. Silverman: Has my hon. Friend considered the Report of the working party on lead pollution round Gravelly Hill—Spaghetti Junction is in my constituency—where precisely the opposite is shown and where, over a period of four years, the blood lead level has almost doubled?

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman). I shall deal specifically with the situation at Gravelly Hill shortly because a considerable amount of work has been done on it, most of which is statistically quite insignificant.
The Report shows that, with the observations that are possible, the matter has very little to do with the modern ascendency of the motor car. In part that ties up with what my hon. Friend the Minister said. At page 8, paragraph 21, the Report refers to the concentration of lead in city dusts in urban streets. It gives some figures for them and says:
Very similar concentrations were observed as long ago as 1928.
At page 19, paragraph 54, the Report refers to an important point about children, who are, naturally, a major cause for concern to many hon. Members. It says:
The most common cause of lead poisoning in children is the ingestion of lead-containing paint.
It is in those areas that we should be doing our major work and not on lead in the atmosphere. Lead in the atmosphere is amenable to control but we should be controlling it without evidence of harm to health. The Report says quite specifically in paragraph 76:
Even though there is no evidence of harm to health from present concentrations of lead in urban air, this is one source amenable to control.
That is why it is being done.
I have quoted those general reports in some detail because it is necessary to counter the source of the Report that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned in relation to Gravelly Hill. These general reports, tying together a number of findings, make it quite clear that the small specific reports are not true.
The process of measuring the small quantities of lead in the blood is extremely difficult. Most of the results, by themselves, are statistically insignificant. One or two way-out figures have been used to suggest results that are not the case. Taken together they produce the lack of evidence which the more general Report of the inter-departmental working group shows.
Work carried out by Butler, MacMurdo and Middleton near the Gravelly Hill interchange shows that the concentration of lead in the atmosphere in residential areas nearby is only about one micro-gramme per cubic metre, although it is slightly greater more directly on the road-

side. The Department of the Environment confirmed that position in a Press release in May 1974.
The second question to which we have to address ourselves is whether lead in the atmosphere anyway itself leads to a significantly increased level of lead in the blood. The evidence is clearly that it does not. I should like to refer to the Sixth Report of the House of Lords on the European Communities, which dealt specifically with one of the documents before us, R/1150/75. In the first paragraph on page 5, the Report says:
Nevertheless the proposed standards would not significantly reduce the blood lead level of the population since 1 microgram of lead per cubic metre of air only raises the blood level by 1 microgram per 100 millilitres.
We should compare that 1 microgramme per 100 millilitres with a normal blood level of up to 40 microgrammes and the very large amounts that we take in by way of food and so on.
I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate. I merely want to say that in addition to the various reports to which I have referred, not only is it quite clear that the DHSS working parties believe that there is no serious evidence that we should go ahead with the proposed level, but it is also clear that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State thinks likewise.
In reply to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about an experiment in Frankfurt and the German experience, my right hon. Friend gave, in my view, a very balanced and good reply, two paragraphs of which are important. I wish to quote them. My right hon. Friend said:
It is possible that reduced blood leads will be observed, but this is not certain, since respiration is only one of the pathways of lead to man, even in cities, and any changes may be outweighed by variations in man's major sources of lead, namely food.
In the second place, if blood lead levels in Frankfurt preceding the action are comparable with those measured in our own great cities, then according to our present knowledge, they will in themselves constitute no risk to human health. Hence any small reductions that are observed may have no real benefit.

Mr. Hooley: As all this is so innocuous and so unnecessary, can my hon. Friend explain why it was that this country had every intention of proceeding to the 0·40 level until the oil crisis, and


we abandoned that not on health grounds but on economic grounds only?

Mr. Bates: I think that this country decided, as did the Americans, to move in that direction on the basis of some very flimsy evidence, much of which, as the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) said, is now being counteracted by further and more detailed evidence.
On the basis of the information that we have, I believe that it would be quite wrong to proceed in the direction that the European Community is suggesting, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Knutsford will take the opportunity of joining those of us who intend to divide the House against it.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Bebington and Elles-mere Port (Mr. Bates) has turned out to be one of the world's greatest experts on this subject, particularly on the lead content of petrol. The House will have been very impressed by what he said.

Mr. John Davies: It was extremely interesting.

Mr. Dykes: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman's comments were extremely interesting and relevant. Although he "went on a bit"—according to the expressions of one or two of his hon. Friends—the House should nevertheless be grateful to him for raising some of the legitimate doubts that the technologists and the respectable apologists of our present lead levels in petrol are entitled to put forward for public consideration. We should bear in mind that, as the hon. Gentleman and others have implied in the debate, some of the anxieties have been rather exaggerated, as far as one can tell, and the other side of the coin needs to be shown as well for the public gaze.
That is notwithstanding the relevant and persuasive argument in the amendment which has been accepted for debate, and apparently accepted by the Minister of State. Nor does it in any way nullify the Minister's understandable concern to have a coherent, pragmatic, rational and reasonable programme for reducing content figures over the next few years.
From what I can gather, there was a general welcome for the conclusions of

the survey and for the figures put forward for the targets up to 1981. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) reminded the House that it was 14 months ago when the Scrutiny Committee recommended this complicated subject for debate. Once again, the House is faced with the perpetual and not merely perennial problem of the manner in which it deals with EEC legislation. It is a problem irrespective of our views for or against membership of the Community. That is a major debate long since resolved. The House has been forced to grapple for one-and-a-half hours with possibly the most complicated and difficult subject that has appeared in any Community document so far.
There has been a delay of 14 months to suit the Government's own timing before the matter goes to the Council for draft Directives on lead content to be further considered. These are extremely old documents and the matter has dragged on for a long time.
I hope that the House will be spared this sort of difficulty in future. A one-and-a-half hour debate is not sufficient to cover such a difficult matter. However let us try to be constructive. Although I do not possess the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), I share my hon. Friend's anxiety that we are beginning to become a little too obsessed with some of the environmental and pollution dangers from all sorts of matter, let alone that which is covered by this debate.
I have been glancing through the reports of the debates in the European Parliament, and the anxieties of a number of my hon. Friends who are members of the Conservative group are reflected in the debate that took place in November 1975. My hon. Friends opposed the Directive pertaining to the composition of petrol because of the many doubts about target figures, minimum threshold objectives, cost factors and adverse balance of payments figures applying to other member States as well as Britain.
There is also the difficult problem of harmonisation. The Community is a large geographical area and there are bound to be difficulties if we have a maximum or minimum threshold harmonisation objective for this extremely complicated subject. There are bound to be


different difficulties for different member States and different regions in the Community. An obvious example is whether we should have the same insulation standards for a factory in Sicily as for a factory on the southern tip of Greenland, if there are any factories in Greenland, which may be a debatable matter.

Mr. Anderson: Should not our own standards be more stringent as traffic densities are much higher in Britain than elsewhere?

Mr. Dykes: I know what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. To be more accurate, the answer should be "No". This subject is far too complicated for a sophisticated legislature to deal with in this manner. Far more research work is needed. As laymen and as politicians we are bound to be impressed by the sort of utterance made in the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities on this subject by Sir Richard Doll, Regius Professor of Medicine, Oxford University. He said that he and others were disturbed that blood levels of lead in this country were approaching a danger point. We are bound to be impressed by that sort of opinion. When the Commission produces highly complex Directives and there is excessive pressure for over-rapid harmonisation, the Community can get into difficulties.
It is right, despite all the difficulties and shortcomings of this debate—and, regrettably, some of my hon. Friends who wished to take part in the debate were unable to do so—that we should collectively give a generalised welcome to the draft Directives, subject to the Government being able to process their policy position effectively at the Council of Ministers when these matters are further discussed. It would be very pleasant if the Minister, in replying, would say a little more about the consultations with the petroleum industry. He referred very quickly to this matter, and we would like to know more about it.
Subject to that, and to our reservations, we welcome the Directive. Nevertheless, we hope that next time we have a complicated subject of this nature to deal with the House will be treated more fairly by the Executive.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am sorry that the House has not had more time to deal with this Directive. This is a question of our procedure. It is not my fault.
Much of the debate was taken up with points of order. I thought it right to give way on four occasions in my opening speech in order to be courteous to the House, and I tried courteously to give as much information as I could—

Mr. Skeet: Mr. Skeet rose—

Mr. Howell: I am sorry. I cannot give way any more. This is what the Government are saying—

Mr. Skeet: Mr. Skeet rose—

Mr. Howell: No, I am sorry. I have only three minutes to deal with a debate on a subject of enormous complexity. I apologise to the hon. Member, but I cannot give way.
I want to deal with the point about the 14 months' delay. When he thinks again the right hon. Member for Knuts-ford (Mr. Davies) will realise that this is not a case of the Government's stalling. This is not the Government attempting not to have a debate. To suggest that is less than fair. The reason for the delay is that which I gave the House a long time ago. We had grave doubts about the validity of some of the scientific propositions on which these Directives were based. Many months ago, therefore, I said that the Government would conduct a major medical and environmental review. That is the reason why it has taken 14 months.
I believe that one hon. Gentleman kindly said—rightly—that we had to involve Harwell and to obtain the advice of Harwell on the whole range of the Directives. There was no attempt on our part not to have a debate until now.
There is no doubt that in isolation lead in petrol does not constitute a hazard to health, but there are other factors to be taken into consideration. I said that it is the totality of the lead that we absorb that matters. Even lead in petrol, and breathing lead in, can have adverse effects on the lives of young children. As many hon. Members have said, we have no exact scientific evidence to produce, so we have to make a judgment, based


on the advice given to us by our medical officer of health and the specialist advisory committee.
It is difficult to reduce the amount of lead in food. The question of lead in water has also been raised, and that is another great difficulty. I have no time to deal with that question, except to say that we are working urgently on that problem. But one thing that the House should do—it would be very guilty if it did not do it—is to keep the levels of lead in petrol at least to the 1971 levels recommended by the European Community. That is what we are proposing to do. We have had medical advice that that is the right thing to do.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been speaking for three minutes. Under Standing Order 3(1)(b), if you feel that a matter is of sufficient importance and has not been adequately debated in the time available, you have a discretion to adjourn the House.
I submit that that is the situation in relation to this Directive, in the sense that it is a complicated matter, a costly matter, and one that has caused a great deal of public concern. There is a clash of opinion, and the Opposition have complained about the view taken by the Executive. Five of my hon. Friends wish to speak. In my submission, this matter has not had sufficient consideration, and I therefore ask for your protection—and ask that you protect yourself in this matter—by suggesting that you should consider whether we should

It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the

adjourn without your putting the Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret that I am not prepared to accept that proposition.

Mr. Howell: In the 10 seconds remaining, I would like to say, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates), that we accept that most lead comes from food. We accept the evidence, which is quite clear, in respect of the average person. We accept that the primary aim of the Directives is to eradicate sources of undue exposure. That is the purpose of some of the modifications we are suggesting to the EEC about its Directives.
Again, in general, there is no relationship between airborne lead and the levels of lead in the blood resulting from other exposures from which we suffer. However, lead from petrol can get into people, especially young children, and that I submit must be the dominating factor which the House must take account of at present.
The question about the balance of payments considerations was raised. It is correct to say that taking lead out means a higher oil requirement—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 6.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[11.40 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stoddart, David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Penhallgon, David



Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Reid, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Loyden, Eddie
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silverman, Julius
Mr. J. D. Dormand




NOES


Cockcroft, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Alf Bates and


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Alistair Goodlad

Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

Mrs. Dunwoody: On point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I take it that we may continue this debate at another time? This is a vital matter and several hon. Members who wished to speak on the amendment, as well as well as on the substantive motion, did not have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What hon. Members are able to debate is a matter for the Government to decide.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised the question of the time element during the last debate and compressed what I wanted to say so that the Minister had time to reply. The Division figures show there was a case for the debate to be adjourned. As it was not possible for you to do so before the Division, can you tell us the conditions under which hon. Members might expect to be able to do this? Without the protection of the Chair, the method of conducting business could be brought into disrepute, which is something none of us wants to happen. What balance of considerations may we expect on this matter in future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already given my decision on this matter and I see nothing to add to what I said then.

Mr. Dykes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not incumbent upon the Government to inform us of their intentions in this matter? The House has been left high and dry and the Executive has not arranged the business properly. What do the Government intend to do? Can we debate this matter again at a very early date? It is an important subject.

Mr. John Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have undertaken that matters recommended for debate by the Scrutiny Committee should be properly debated by the House before they are proceeded with in the Council of Ministers. In the light of events tonight, it would be difficult to suggest that this matter could be considered to have been fully debated within the terms of the Government's undertaking.

Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall see that the matters arising from tonight's events are drawn to the atten-

tion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I am quite certain that if he had been here, he would have voted. The distinction between that situation and the attitude of Opposition Members who said that they wished to reduce the amount of lead in petrol and to support the Government and then failed to vote to do so is difficult to make.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) raised a point of substance. When Directives involve complicated matters on which there is considerable feeling in the House, the question whether one-and-a-half hours is sufficient time for debate has to be considered. It would have to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and, no doubt through the usual channels, discussions would take place.
The Government have followed the normal practice of putting down a motion which allows for a debate lasting for one-and-a half hours. We take note of the situation which has arisen because of the complicated nature of the issue. No doubt my right hon. Friend will report back to the House when he has had time to consider it.

Orders of the Day — INSOLVENCY BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c).

FORESTRY MEASURES

That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1131 /75 relating to Forestry Measures.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question agreed to.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (GENERAL SYNOD) MEASURES

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If there is no objection I shall put the Question on both Measures together.
That the Ecclesiastical Judges and Legal Officers Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
That the Cathedrals Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Terry Walker.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Orders of the Day — WINSFORD (HOUSING ESTATE)

11.57 p.m.

Mr. John Cockcroft: The short history of the Mount Pleasant housing estate at Winsford, Cheshire, in my constituency, is a chequered one. I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring its problems to the notice of the House. I do so as much in sadness as in anger, and sincerely hope that as a result of the debate something will be done to put matters right and to allay the fears of the estate's long-suffering tenants as to their future, for, to use the famous phrase, something must be done and it must be done soon.
When they have considered what has been said in the debate, the Ministers of the Department of the Environment, or at least a Minister, may consider visiting the estate to see the extent of the problems. If adverse publicity were threatened concerning the cost of such a trip to the north of England following events elsewhere, I and others interested in the matter would be happy to pay the fare.
Winsford made a so-called overspill agreement with Manchester in 1958 and the first people moved there at the end of 1962. In 1964, the agreement was enlarged to include Liverpool, because the

first agreement did not have the required degree of industrial priority. When the expanded agreement was drawn up the then Board of Trade insisted that Winsford should raise its target from 32,000 people by 1971 to 70,000 by 1986. A plan prepared by consultants, approved by the then Ministry of Housing and by the Cheshire County Council, provided for an even larger final population, possibly 100,000 by the year 2000.
Major industrial growth followed in the late 1960s, and Winsford's house building lagged behind the industrial requirements of homes for workers. A series of crash programmes was undertaken, and Shanklin, Cox and Associates, the consultants to the Winsford Urban District Council, selected the design for the Mount Pleasant estate from a number of alternatives offered by the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
The Mount Pleasant estate, conceived in 1967, followed two smaller estates built on a similar pattern, totalling about 1,300 homes, which now house a population of about 4,000 people, mainly nominated by Liverpool Corporation in the beginning. These two smaller estates were plagued, and are plagued, by recurrent fires, which have also occurred on the Mount Pleasant estate.
The Mount Pleasant estate consists of 750 houses. Its construction was completed five years ago, at a cost of about £3 million. Local industrial firms, attracted to Winsford in part by generous Government financial incentives, were anxious that there should be accommodation available for their workers as soon as possible. On to the old village of Winsford were grafted rapidly several new housing estates, to accommodate workers from Liverpool and, to a lesser extent, Manchester. In the unattractive, but commonly-used phrase, Winsford, with a total population now of about 27,000, has become a "Liverpool overspill." Further growth is both planned and probable.
Soon after the estate was finished it became apparent that the type of flat roofing used on the houses was inadequate, in that a large number of leaks, letting in rain to upper rooms, developed. Hence, it was decided to re-roof all 750 houses, at a cost of over £350,000. The


material used was an aluminium overlay skin.
I may say, in parenthesis, that at the lime of the building of the Mount Pleasant estate, the Ministry apparently wished to get away from the older, more traditional designs of such estates. Moreover, both labour and bricks were then in short supply. The new design, which was apparently urged on local authorities at that time, was hence a reasonable attempt, before one could speak with hindsight, to overcome the constructional difficulties which had been experienced then and in the past. These problems were not, of course, unique to Mount Pleasant, or, indeed, to Winsford.
Clearly, there is a case for industrialised house building methods, in particular on the grounds of economy, as long as they do the job for which they are intended. In this case, they did not.
In September 1975, three of the new roofs were blown off by high winds. As a result, all 750 houses were apparently checked by Vale Royal Council, the successor body to the old Winsford council. The tenants were then assured by letter that the remaining undamaged roofs were safe against wind speeds of up to 100 mph.
On 2nd January, 25 roofs were carried away by winds which reached a velocity of 92 miles an hour. By British standards, this was a hurricane. Needless to say, it resulted in considerable hardship, illness, loss of work and general distress. The tenants feel strongly, and so do I, that only conventional housing methods, applied to the building of a new estate or to the reconstruction of the existing estate, will suffice. Financial pressure on central and local government, however great, should not prevent early steps in this direction.
Meanwhile, obviously the tenants live in constant fear of another disaster, brought about by abnormal weather conditions. Children are understandably afraid to sleep upstairs on account of possible high winds. At a time of such winds, the tenants are afraid to leave their homes. When the wind velocity rises above a certain level, the emergency services are alerted.
There are other problems also, such as the tenants' fears of the houses becoming

fire traps, since they are mainly built of timber, and fears of subsidence, in an area of salt-mining—an activity going back to Roman times. There are also drainage difficulties. I shall not strain the patience of the House by enumerating all the serious problems that exist. It can rest assured, however, that the tenants of this estate, crowded together as they are, with relatively few community facilities, feel uneasy about what else may befall them.
Surveys show that many of the tenants suffer from considerable depression concerning the conditions in which they live and their future prospects.
The Vale Royal Council has done much to tackle the short-term problems of the estate, which are largely not of its own making. After the January gales, a lot of labour was at once drafted on to the estate and most of the immediate damage was repaired. The main objective was, of course, to make the houses waterproof. This was a major exercise. Moreover, there was damage to be repaired, albeit less damage, on the other Winsford estates as well.
Thus after the January gales officers of the Cheshire Fire Brigade worked on the estate for 36 hours with hardly a break. A local councillor rightly referred to their sterling work at the scene as being the nearest thing to the Liverpool blitz that he had ever seen.
The Council, after examination of the damage, decided that there were two main reasons why the roofs had blown off. In some cases the gutters had come off, allowing the wind to get between the two layers of roof. Often the fixing had not been adequate to withstand such abnormal climatic conditions. Moreover, there was the perhaps fundamental original error of using polystyrene insulation on the houses.
The rents have been reduced by the council to help those most affected by the gale damage. This has been done on a differential basis, but all the tenants of the estate have benefited, it must be admitted, relative to those living in similar conditions nearby. Even so, they feel most unhappy with the rents they pay, in present conditions, for what they regard as an inferior product.
An individual example of the recent havoc may suffice. A tenant on the


Mount Pleasant estate rents a garage not far from his work. On the night of the January gales, his car was in that garage. A roof from another block of houses flattened the garage. The quotation for repairing the car was more than £300. The tenant claimed from the Vale Royal Council. His car has only third party insurance. He needs the car to go to work each day in Chester. The Council maintains that it is not its responsibility, since the aluminium roof came off a block of houses which had not been inspected and approved by the roofing contractors. The latter's insurers say it was an "act of God" and therefore not their responsibilty.
To summarise, the outstanding issues concerning the Mount Pleasant estate are these: to what extent the lessons of the last five years concerning the design of the houses there have been learned, and applied elsewhere; whether the methods used to correct the original mistakes on the building of the estate will be critically examined; whether careful consideration will be given to modifying the existing buildings—perhaps by reducing the height and width of some of them—so that in the future gales will be less channelled down the alleys between them; what assurances can be given to the tenants of the estate that the general dismal environment in which they live will be improved eventually; and whether a high-level inquiry is not called for to assess and investigate the important points raised in the debate—in particular, how long these rickety, damp-infested houses are likely to endure; finally, to what extent are the Government prepared to help the Vale Royal District Council to cover the costs of its repairs, the temporary rehousing of the tenants. and so on?
I thank the House for its patience in considering a matter which, although ostensibly of only local concern, raises much wider issues.

12.7 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Cockcroft) on securing this debate and on the lucid manner in which he presented the problems facing his constituents.
The history of unsatisfactory roofs at the Mount Pleasant estate at Winsford is,

of course, well known to the Department, and I sympathise with those tenants who have been greatly inconvenienced—and still are—by the problems that have developed. However, I would ask those tenants to be patient just a little longer while the local housing authority—Vale Royal District Council—with the aid of professional and technical advice from my Department, decides on a solution that will produce permanently secure and waterproof roofing to the houses in question.
Perhaps it would help if I were briefly to explain to the House how this problem has come about.
In 1971, the Mount Pleasant council housing estate was constructed with the aid of the normal Government subsidy under the town development provisions to provide about 750 system-built houses, chiefly for Merseysiders moving to the expanding town of Winsford to take up jobs there.
The consultant architects commissioned by the then Winsford Urban District Council decided on a roof design different from the one normally used by the builder on this type of house, and the dwellings were redesigned to incorporate flat roofs rather than the standard pitched ones. It was accepted that the designs of the roofs and materials used were, as then, rather untested, but they were incorporated in good faith and the contractor carried out the works to the specification laid down.
At this stage the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government's involvement was limited to the consideration of an appropriate cost yardstick for the site having been given that necessary certificates by Winsford Urban District Council, saying that the dwellings would be up to the mandatory Parker Morris standards, had planning permission, and had been designed by a registered architect, amongst other matters required to be certified. On the basis of this, the council was then free to accept a tender for the erection of the estate without further approval from the Ministry if that tender was within 10 per cent. of the cost yardstick figure notified for the site. This is what in fact happened, and the Ministry's involvement from then on was its statutory approval of loan and subsidy from the tender details supplied to it by the council.
But, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the roofs started to present problems at an early stage and leaks were reported almost before the contract was completed. Remedial measures were taken by the former council—Winsford—on an ad hoc basis and, although the council felt that it had no legal claim against either the consultant architects or the contractor in respect of the leaking roofs, it did secure an out-of-court lump sum settlement from the contractor to cover the leaks that had occurred to a given date.
By 1973, however, the leaks had become more extensive and common throughout the estate, and the council sought the advice of the Building Research Station and the Department's regional office. An inspection of the estate disclosed that although only 70 of the house roofs had developed leaks, the felt coverings were not proving effective and, far from lasting an anticipated 20 years or so, were developing leaks after only a three-year life. It was therefore agreed by all the officials concerned that the roofs throughout the estate required replacement to give the houses a maximum weatherproof life.
A number of alternative solutions were considered before it was decided to affix an aluminium "layer" on top of the existing roofs, after first checking with the designer that the house structure would sustain the additional weight. The great advantage of this solution was that it could be done without disturbing the tenants too much and, when completed, would provide what was considered to be a permanent and lasting solution. The cost was only a little higher than that involved in a straightforward re-felting exercise, with its uncertain success for the future.
The Building Research Station advised on the design of the aluminium-layer roof to be fitted on top of the existing roof, a contract was let by Winsford Urban District Council, and the work was commenced early in 1974. The Department gave loan approval for the works and is providing subsidy towards the cost of the repairs as a special case.
After some initial teething troubles over the fixing, the aluminium layers proved wholly successful in preventing further leakages, and all seemed well—until the arrival of the almost freak storm-force winds which, as the House

will recall, caused country-wide damage at the begining of this year. I was within a few miles of Winsford on that evening, and it was certainly the stormiest night I had ever known.
It seemed that one corner of the Mount Pleasant estate was particularly vulnerable to the gales, in view of the prevailing wind direction at that time, and in this area of the estate about 25 houses had their aluminium roof layers blown off or otherwise damaged. Let me hasten to put the problem in perspective. That was 25 houses out of an estate of over 700. None the less, I am not seeking to minimise what was clearly a nasty experience for the tenants affected.
Subsequent investigations have shown that neither the layers nor the original flat roofs were in any way defective in themselves—and indeed, none of the original house structures was damaged by the wind. It does seem likely, however, that many aluminium layers may have been attached to the roofs below by an insufficient number of fixing points—indeed, fewer than had been recommended by the Building Research Station—and that this, coupled with a peculiar wind effect in that part of the estate, combined to cause the resultant damage. Let me, however, reassure both the House and the tenants of the estate that nothing yet brought to light suggests that the aluminium layers were unsuitable in themselves or that they or the structure of the houses are unstable.
I, too, must here pay tribute to the speed and effectiveness with which the Vale Royal Council officials approached the situation following the gales. Not only was the emergency service called out on the night of the gales; over the weekend these services, with the help of council and the contractors' workmen, were on hand to clear up, and by Sunday evening had covered all known defective roofs. Families were rehoused as necessary and within a few days the council had sought the reports of fire services and others on the scene and brought in both the Department's Building Research Station and the regional office as well as an expert in aerodynamics from Salford University, part of whose study I have seen. It is a very commendable achievement, and one that must have been very reassuring to the people affected.
1711–12
My Department was able to assure the council that loan approval would be available immediately to enable the damaged houses to be repaired without delay, pending consideration of any long-term action that might be necessary to the estate. The council has apparently carried out temporary measures to make the damaged houses habitable and has also made significant reductions in the rents payable throughout the estate to compensate the tenants in degree for the inconvenience caused. It has also had a meeting with representatives of the tenants, resulting in the setting up of a complaints centre on the estate to provide a most useful liaison service, on a regular basis, between the tenants and officers of the council, concerned with their well-being.
Whilst all this has been going on the Department of Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineering at the University of Salford has been carrying out tests in its wind tunnel to assess wind effects on the estate, and the council's own officers, in collaboration with the Department's technical officers, have been considering what remedial works are necessary. I am advised that a recommendation by the chief officer of the council is shortly to be put to the elected members.
The decision as to a long-term solution is one for the Vale Royal District Council. I feel sure that the hon. Member will agree that all concerned have done what they can to see that the Council has the benefit of comprehensive advice on which to decide what action to take. The end of the tenants' worries about the state of their houses therefore looks to be in sight.
As to whether the problems associated with the flat roofs have now been overcome, although I am unable to say completely that this is so, because I do not know what course the Council will adopt, I am sure that the hon Member will agree, from what I have outlined, that there is little reason to doubt the solution of the problem. The leaking that occurred has already been satisfactorily remedied, and I am confident that with more secure fixing of the additional roofing layer to the already well tested house structure there is unlikely to be any repetition of the damage suffered on 2nd January.
1713-14
Let me turn now to the question of compensation. The House may well recall a statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 7th January about the country-wide storm damage caused early in that month, which outlined my Department's position regarding the funding of resultant works of repair. Essentially, existing legislation already permits local councils to consider making grants or loans to help with these works under the Housing Act and the Local Government Act 1972, and local authorities are expected to repair damage caused by normally insurable risks from their own resources, with claims as necessary against the appropriate insurers.
There can, therefore, be no question of special compensation in these cases, and it is not accepted that in the case of the Mount Pleasant estate the Department has any special responsibility compared with other local authority properties.
The Department has, however, been able to assure the council that when the full-scale remedial measures have been determined we shall, subject to the reasonableness of the costs and the adequacies of the council's financial resources, be prepared to see that any loan approval required will be made available with as little delay as possible.
As I have said, we all hope for a speedy and lasting solution to the problems that seem to have beset the Mount Pleasant estate. I emphasise that the prime consideration must be to provide a solution that will be reassuring to the tenants, so that they can have confidence that there will be no recurrence of the inconveniences and disturbances which some of them have experienced.
In concluding, let me stress that whilst my Department has no direct responsibility for the conditions on the estate, I am pleased that we have been able to assist both the former Winsford Council and the new Vale Royal District Council to deal quickly and effectively with the problems that have arisen, to the benefit of the tenants who, after all. are the persons really affected.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.